Chandan Kumar and others v State of Himachal Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh High Court
29 May 2013
Cr.MP(M) No. 436 of 2013 along with Cr.MP(M) No. 437 of 2013 and Cr.MP(M) No. 438 of 2013
The Judgment was delivered by : Sanjay Karol, J.
1. Status report taken on record.
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 436 of 2013 is filed by petitioner Chandan Kumar, Cr.MP(M) No. 437 of 2013 is filed by petitioner Abhishek Kumar and Cr.MP(M) No. 438 of 2013 is filed by petitioner Ajit Jha, under the provisions of S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail from custody in relation to F.I.R. No. 78/13, dated 17.3.2013, under the provisions of S. 420 and 120-B, Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, H.P. Petitioners were arrested on 21.3.2013.
3. Twice bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. They stand rejected vide orders dated 26.3.2013 and 2.5.2013 respectively. Uninfluenced by the same, present petitions are being considered and disposed of on its own merits.
4. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel, has argued that no case under the provisions of S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be made out against the accused persons. In support of his case he has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the apex Court: Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 2011 Indlaw SC 775 and Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, (2012) 4 SCC 134 2012 Indlaw SC 38.
5. As per the case of the prosecution, the present petitioners, got issued two advertisements dated 5.3.2013 and 6.3.2013 in daily newspapers Himachal Dastak and Amar Ujala, to the effect that walk in interview for filling up 9 posts of District Project Officer and 66 posts of Block Project Officers would be held on 17.3.2013 at Gautam Girls College, Hamirpur. Significantly candidates were cautioned to be aware of agents, touts and job racketeers. Successful candidates were to be given an honorarium of Rs. 14,500/- and Rs. 10150/- per month, respectively.
6. On 17.3.2013, police through reliable sources learnt that the present petitioners had assembled at the given venue for conducting the interviews. Further investigation revealed that the petitioners had adopted a novel method of calling upon the unemployed educated youth of the State, to appear for an interview for the posts which were never intended to be filled up as none existed. In fact, accused persons could not produce any document to establish that the NGO of which they claimed to be the authorized representatives/promoters ever existed or was carrying out any activity. Investigation further revealed that in response to the advertisement, 3000 unemployed youth of the State had gathered at the fixed venue, who had in fact paid Rs. 450/- each for the interview. In this method huge amounts were collected only to cheat innocent and gullible people.
7. In the instant case, petitioners adopted a novel method of cheating the unemployed youth of the State. From the very beginning they had no intention of filling up the posts so advertised. Allegedly they could not establish existence of such posts. With dishonest intent, they induced persons who had responded to the advertisement to appear for the interview and part with their money. They had promised them of getting gainful employment.
8. The present petitioners are not residents of the State. Petitioner Ajit Jha is a resident of New Delhi, petitioner Abhishek Kumar resides at Varanasi, U.P. and petitioner Chandan Kumar resides at Patna, Bihar.
9. In my considered view, it would neither be in public interest nor desirable to allow the present petitions and enlarge the petitioners on bail. The total amount of money received is to be ascertained. Also how many more people had applied and on what terms, needs to be examined.
10. One cannot loose sight of the fact that the state of Himachal Pradesh is having highest literacy rate which has resulted into unemployment in the white collar segment. Allegedly large unemployed youth stand deceived as a result of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioners. Details of monetary transaction need to be looked into. Petitioners are involved in a heinous crime and such like offences are rare in the state of Himachal Pradesh. At this juncture, it is neither desirable nor appropriate to allow the petitions as it might hamper free and fair investigation/trial. Apprehension of the State is well founded. Possibility of the accused influencing the witnesses as also tampering with the prosecution evidence cannot be ruled out. Deep rooted conspiracy affecting public interest needs to be viewed seriously.
11. In Dipak Shubhashchandra’s case 2012 Indlaw SC 38 (supra), Court was dealing with a case where petitioner was granted bail after long confinement, by taking into account his ill health. What weighed with the Court was the fact that prolonged trial would have resulted into the accused remaining in jail for a longer period of detention than the quantum of sentence which would have been awarded, in the event of the accused being convicted in relation to the offences in question. The judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Sanjay Chandra’s case 2011 Indlaw SC 775 (supra) is also inapplicable to the given facts. Significantly the apex Court has reiterated in both the cases that for grant of bail, each case has to be considered and decided on its own merit.
12. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. In my considered view committal to jail in the instant case is necessary.
13. Thus taking into account the overall attending circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present petitions are dismissed.
14. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of.
Petitions dismissed
