Jasvir Kumar vs State Of Punjab

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

240

16.09.2021

Anaj Mandi, Patiala, District Patiala (Punjab)

420, 465, 438, 471, 120-B, 409 IPC and Section 66-D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008

The petitioner, whose first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2023 passed in CRM-M-44439-2022, has again come up before this Court seeking bail under Section 438 CrPC, apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of finding candidates who could solve the on line question-paper of the examination for the recruitment of Police Sub Inspectors in the State of Punjab, and also running the center from where the examinations center was hacked.

In paragraph 31 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

The case of the prosecution is that the SHO, Police Station Anaaj Mandi, Patiala, had received secret information on 16.09.2021 that online examinations for recruitment of various departments were conducted at the center at Infra IT Solutions, Zila Parishad Complex, Patiala, and some hackers have hacked the computers. The informant further said that in the examination for the recruitment of Sub Inspectors, which was conducted in August 2021, one candidate Gurpreet Singh had secured the highest marks, and he had given his examination from the center of Infra IT Solutions, and further that the said person Gurpreet Singh had not secured marks because of merits but because a gang of cyber criminals had hacked computer centers and someone else had remotely solved his question paper, thus, he secured the highest marks by paying massive amounts of money to the cyber-thugs. Based on this information, the police registered an FIR and investigated. During the investigation, they arrested the said candidate Gurpreet Singh and conducted further investigations and kept arresting several people involved in such crimes. On 22.09.2021, one of the arrested accused, Ankit, informed the investigator about the involvement of the present petitioner.

Petitioner is seeking bail on the ground that co-accused Avtar Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2023 passed in CRM-M-27878-2022. Petitioner’s counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

Perusal of the above said order reveals that the said order was passed on 11.05.2023 i.e. prior to the date when the petitions (CRM-M-44439 & 55933 of 2022) filed by Jasvir Kumar and Mohit Chaudhary, were dismissed. At the time of dismissal of the bail petition, this Court was aware of the order granting bail to co-accused Avtar Singh.

Although as per State’s counsel, role of Avtar Singh was also quite big but still role assigned to the petitioner is much large in addition huge amount of money has to be recovered which was not the case of Avtar Singh.

Given above, scope of entertaining second anticipatory bail application is very narrow and is permissible only on very very limited legal grounds which did not exist in the present case. Furthermore, as per investigation, massive amount of money was obtained from the petitioner and the co-accused, which is to be recovered. It is strange that despite the dismissal of the bail application way back in May 2023, the investigator has failed to arrest the petitioner whereas, in the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, their intention is to arrest the petitioner and to go for custodial interrogation for recovery of the money and to know the involvement of the persons.

Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.

In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[19]. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].

In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.

Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.