Monu Singh Jamwal vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

For selling and marketing fake degrees in Manav Bharti University in connivance with its wholly-soly, Raj Kumar Rana and now having been

arrested, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail on the ground that the main accused Raj Kumar

Rana stands released on bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed petitions under Section 437 CrPC before the concerned JMIC. However, vide orders dated 24.12.2020 and

16.01.2021 learned JMIC dismissed the same. The petitioner had also filed bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C before the concerned Sessions

Judge, however, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner.

In Para 14 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that a complaint was filed by Himachal Pradesh Private Education Institutions Regulatory

Commission and the investigation detected a huge fake degree scam. After that police arrested Chairman of Manav Bharti University, Shri Raj

Kumar Rana, and others officials. Later on, the State Government constituted a Special Investigating Unit and also proceeded to conduct forensic

audit of the University and Administrator to run its affairs. The petitioner has also been arrested in the aforesaid FIR.

Mr.Vipin Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the main accused is released on bail, as such, there is no point for detaining the co-

accused.

On the contrary, the State contends that the main accused was released on bail after undergoing 5-6 months’ incarceration and in case the

petitioner is released on bail, he would destroy the evidence as he is kingpin. The State further contended that it was with great difficulty, the SIU was

able to arrest the petitioner on 17th September, 2020 and he was sent to judicial custody on 26th December, 2020. She says that the investigator may

need his police custody for remaining five days, for which, they are legally entitled. She further contends that Police have collected sufficient evidence

against the bail petitioner and the co-accused.

The investigation qua the petitioner is at crucial stage and given the previous conduct of the petitioner that he had absconded and despite obtaining

protection, failed to join the investigation, hence, he is not entitled for bail at this stage.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain statements and memos from the police report, prepared under section 173(2) CrPC, copies of

which the accused had duly received in compliance to S. 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the Ld. Counsel referred were neither filed with

the petition, nor its copies supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any finding on a document in the Counsel's brief and not on

Court's file.

Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons mentioned

above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the

accused.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is

dismissed. The state may seek police custody for further investigation, if they wanted to do so within 15 days from today. Failure to do so, shall be the

factor that the State does not need custodial investigation of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh petition after two weeks before

this Court or trial Court.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.