Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 767 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 20, 2017




                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  767    OF 2017
      (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1762 of 2017)


The State of Bihar & Anr.                                      … Appellants
 
                                   versus

Amit Kumar @ Bacha rai                                         … Respondent

                                  Judgment

N.V.Ramana, J.
Leave granted.


This criminal appeal is filed by State of Bihar against the  final  judgment
and order dated 14.02.2017 passed in Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.  53391  of
2016, by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein the High  Court  has
passed following order:

“Considering the entire facts and circumstances  of  this  case,  especially
the  period  of  custody  already  undergone  by  the  petitioner,  let  the
petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of  Rs.
20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two local sureties of the like  amount  each
to  the   satisfaction   of   learned   Special   Judge,   vigilance,   1st,
Patna/successor court in  connection  with  Special  case  No.  32  of  2016
arising out of Patna Kotwali Police Station  Case  No.  270  of  2016  after
framing of the charge in the case which  must  be  framed  within  a  month,
failing which the petitioner would be released on bail  on  furnishing  bail
bond with condition that the petitioner  shall  fully  co-operate  with  the
trial of the case and shall not indulge in  any  educational  activity  till
the conclusion of the  trial  or  any  criminal  activities.  On  report  of
subsequent criminal activity of the petitioner, the court below shall be  at
liberty to cancel his bail bond in this case also”.


Aggrieved by the above order of the High Court,  granting  conditional  bail
to the respondent, State of Bihar is in appeal before us


Brief factual matrix in the present matter  is  that  the  students  of  one
Vishnu Rai College, Kiratpur Raja Ram Bhagwanpur, Vaishali, were  successful
in occupying first ten places in the merit list of Intermediate  Examination
conducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council. Subsequently there was  a
report in the electronic media  about  the  poor  intellectual  capacity  of
those who have topped the Intermediate Examination in the  State  of  Bihar.
In light of scathing media reports, students whose names were  part  of  the
merit list were called for an interview before  the  Bihar  Schools  Complex
Committee. Subsequently a written complaint was lodged by  the  Director  of
Secondary Education. Consequently an FIR  bearing  P.S.  Case  No.  270/2016
dated 06.06.2016 was registered before  the  Kotwali  Police  Station  Patna
under Section  420,  465,  468,  471,  120B  of  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860.
Thereafter, investigation was conducted which revealed fraudulent  practices
prevailing  in  Bihar  Intermediate  Examination  involving   students   and
management of the said Vishnu Rai College resulting in  the  arrest  of  the
respondent herein.


Assailing the impugned order of the High Court,  which  granted  conditional
bail  to  the  respondent,  learned  senior  counsel  Mr.  Siddharth  Luthra
appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar contended  that,  the  High  Court
erred in not taking into  consideration  the  gravity  of  the  offence.  He
further contended that  the  respondent  herein,  Principal  of  Vishnu  Rai
College, is the king pin of what  is  publically  known  as  ‘Bihar  Toppers
Scam’ and thereby countered the argument of parity. Relying on the  excerpts
of the case diary and seizure memo, which were not considered  by  the  High
Court, he pointed out that a prima  facie  case  is  made  out  against  the
respondent and consequently prayed for of setting aside the  impugned  order
which granted conditional bail for the respondent.


Per  contra  learned  senior  counsel  Mr.  U.R.  Lalit  appearing  for  the
respondent-accused has contended that as  there  is  no  evidence  of  money
being exchanged by the accused, there is no  possibility  of  conviction  in
this case. Further learned senior  counsel  for  respondent  has  vehemently
argued that, except  for  the  evidence  of  the  co-accused,  there  is  no
evidence  to  establish  that  there  was  exchange  of  money  between  the
respondent and other members involved  in  the  conspiracy.  Furthermore  he
contended that the statements of co-accused cannot be taken into account  as
the same is inadmissible in the eyes of law. Moreover he  pointed  out  that
the seizure of materials like rubber stamps  etc,  which  were  found  in  a
sister premises, cannot be relied upon.


Learned senior counsel for respondent has placed  reliance  on  Bihar  Legal
Support Society v. Chief Justice of India[1], where a Constitution Bench  of
this Court has  observed  that  this  Court  should  generally  desist  from
intervening in matters of grant or refusal  of  regular  bail  /anticipatory
bail by the High Court. Further he relied on the case of  Masroor  v.  State
of U.P.[2], in which it was observed that this Court should  not  ordinarily
interfere with the order of the  High  Court,  granting  or  refusing  bail,
unless there is an exceptional circumstance. Lastly he  placed  reliance  on
the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI[3], wherein this Court had  iterated  that
the amount of incarceration the accused  may  have  to  undergo,  if  he  is
ultimately punished, would be a relevant consideration  while  granting  the
bail.

Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused  the  documents  available
on record.


A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court  has  not
given any reasoning while granting bail.  In  a  mechanical  way,  the  High
Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already  in  custody
for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such mere fact  that
he was in jail for however long time  should  not  be  the  concern  of  the
Courts.


We are conscious of the fact that  the  accused  is  charged  with  economic
offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to  be  the  kingpin/ring  leader.
Further it is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved  in  tampering
with  the  answer  sheets  by  illegal  means  and  interfering   with   the
examination system  of  Bihar  Intermediate  Examination  2016  and  thereby
securing top ranks, for his  daughter  and  other  students  of  Vishnu  Rai
College, in the said examination. During the  investigation  when  a  search
team raided his place various documents relating to  property  and  land  to
the tune of Rs. 2.57 Cr. were recovered besides  Rs.20  lakhs  in  cash.  In
addition to this, allegedly a large  number  of  written  answer  sheets  of
various students, letter heads and rubber  stamps  of  several  authorities,
admit cards, illegal fire arm etc. were  found  which  establishes  a  prima
facie case against the respondent. The allegations  against  the  respondent
are very serious in nature, which are reflected from  the  excerpts  of  the
case dairy. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged,  if
proved, may jeopardize the credibility of the education system of  State  of
Bihar.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent claimed parity  with
twenty eight (28) other accused persons in the same case  who  have  already
been granted bail. We find that though some of accused are released on  bail
most of them are teachers who performed the invigilation  duty  and  members
of the Managing Committee against whom the charges are not  so  serious.  It
is not appropriate to compare  the  case  of  the  accused-respondent,  with
those who were on bail, as the respondent is alleged to be the  king-pin  of
the entire crime.

Although there  is  no  quarrel  with  respect  to  the  legal  propositions
canvassed by the learned counsels, it should  be  noted  that  there  is  no
straight jacket formula for consideration of grant of bail  to  an  accused.
It  all  depends  upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case.  The
Government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees  is  both  legitimate
and  compelling.  So  also  is  the  cherished  right  of  personal  liberty
envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439 of The  Code  of
Criminal  Procedure,   1973,   which   is   the   bail   provision,   places
responsibility upon the  courts  to  uphold  procedural  fairness  before  a
person’s liberty is abridged. Although ‘bail is the  rule  and  jail  is  an
exception’ is well established in our  jurisprudence,  we  have  to  measure
competing forces present in facts and  circumstances  of  each  case  before
enlarging a person on bail.

We are of the considered opinion that  the  case  of Sanjay Chandra (supra),
as relied upon by learned counsel for  respondent,  is distinguishable  from
the case at hand as the charges in that case carried  a  maximum  punishment
for a term which may extend to seven years.  In  the  present  case,  charge
sheet  has  been   submitted,   inter   alia,   for   the   offences   under
section 409[4], 465, 467[5], 468, 471, 188,  201,  212  and  120B  of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 8[6], 9[7], 13 (1)(c)/(d)  read  with  13(2)[8]
of Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988[9].  Therefore  the  case  of  Sanjay
Chandra (supra) provides no assistance for the respondent herein.

We are also conscious that if any undeserving candidates are allowed to  top
exams by corrupt means, not only will the society be deprived  of  deserving
candidates, but it will be unfair  for  those  students  who  have  honestly
worked hard for one whole year and are  ultimately  disentitled  to  a  good
rank by fraudulent practices prevalent in those  examinations.  It  is  well
settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart  and  need  to
be visited with a different approach in  the  matter  of  bail.[10]  Usually
socio-economic offence has deep  rooted  conspiracies  affecting  the  moral
fiber of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs  to  be  considered
seriously.


Further we cannot lose sight of the fact that the  investigating  agency  is
going to file additional charge sheet. Therefore, the respondent’s  presence
in the custody may be necessary for further  investigation.  Furthermore  we
cannot approve the order of the  High  Court,  in  directing  the  concerned
investigating authority to file the charge sheet  within  a  month,  as  the
case involves almost 32 accused and a complex modus operandi.


Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the gravity of  the  offence
and  several  other  crucial  factors  which  are  discussed  in  detail  in
preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that  it  is  not  advisable  to
release the accused/ respondent on bail at this stage.  Accordingly  without
expressing any opinion on final merits of the case, we set aside  the  order
of the High Court. The appeal stands allowed.
                                                              …………………………….J.
                                                              (N. V. Ramana)

                                                              …………………………….J.
                                                          (Prafulla C. Pant)

New Delhi,
April  20, 2017

-----------------------
[1]         [2] (1986) 4 SCC 767.
[3]   [4] (2009) 14 SCC 286.
[5]         [6] (2012) 1 SCC 40.
[7]         [8] Which carries punishment of imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to ten
years and shall also be liable for a fine.
[9]   [10] Which carries punishment of imprisonment for life or with
imprisonment of either description which may extend up to a term of ten
years and shall also be liable to a fine.
[11]  [12] Which carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of three
years and may extend up to seven years with fine.
[13]  [14] Which carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of three
years and may extend up to seven years with fine.
[15]  [16] Which carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of four
years and may extend up to ten years with fine.
[17]        [18] It is to be noted that Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
was amended by ‘The Lokpal and Lokayutas Act, 2013’, Act I of 2014 (w.e.f
16.01.2014). This amendment has increased the minimum prescribed punishment
under Section 8, 9, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
[19]
      [20] Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466; Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439.

-----------------------
                                 REPORTABLE