Md. Sultan Bharti v. State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral)

¶1Prayer in this petition has been made for grant of pre arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No.166 dated 15.04.2022 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sector-14, Panchkula on the basis of a written complaint filed by Satpal Garg, Superintendent of Haryana State Pharmacy Council, Panchkula (for short-the Council) alleging therein that some candidates had applied for registration as Pharmacists with the abovesaid Council. They had submitted their 10+2 class and other qualification certificates. All these candidates were residents of State of Haryana and had passed 10+2 examination from the Board of School and Technical Education, Chhatisgarh (for short-the Board). On scrutiny of the documents submitted by them, the Council came to know that in fact, the Board was an unapproved institute and only temporary recognition was granted to it which was declared void by the Chhattisgarh Secondary Education Board by passing an order dated 07.03.2015, clarifying that the Board was not having any valid recognition as per law. Since, the certificates

CRM-M No.35

qua qualifying therefore, praye

2.

As investigation pr officer of rank Panchkula. The 122 candidates accused who w who had been t equivalence ha with the office had also been issued by the B the year 2016 granted to the B is also revealed been signing th in favour of o Board by being investigation is an application Court of learn

01.04.2023.

3.

Th grounds and it 5752 of 2024 g 10+2 examination were still er was made for taking action in s per the further allegations, roceedings were initiated after c k of Deputy Superintendent o e President of the Council was j who had submitted the docum were employees of the Board, h the Controller of the examinatio ad been obtained by him in an ers concerned of the Chhattisgar nominated as an accused. It w Board were having the signatures and 2018 despite the fact that Board had been cancelled by virt d during the course of investiga he receipt books of the Board and ne Lamba foundation by using g hand-in-glove with the accused s still underway. Apprehending for grant of anticipatory bail wh ned Additional Sessions Judge he present petition has been f is argued by his counsel that he l being issued by the Board, the matter. after registration of the FIR, constituting a SIT headed by an f Police, State Crime Branch, oined into investigation. List of ents was obtained. Some of the had been arrested. The petitioner on with the Board for which the illegal manner, after collusion rh Secondary Education Board, was found that the mark-sheets s of the petitioner as appended in t the certificate for equivalence tue of order dated 07.03.2015. It ation that the petitioner had also d had purchased 29 acres of land g the funds earned through the d Nitin Lamba and his wife. The his arrest, the petitioner moved hich had been dismissed by the e, Panchkula vide order dated filed by the petitioner on the e has been falsely implicated in

, , n , f e r e n , s n e t o d e e d e d e n

CRM-M No.35752 of 2024 -3-

this case. He has nothing to do with the administration of working of the Board and is a simple employee of the Board. He had never been a trustee of the Board. He has only performed the duties assigned to him in the course of employment and was least concerned with the persons managing and running the Board. He is suffering from several ailments. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. He is ready to join the investigation. No case for commission of offence of forgery or cheating has been made out against him. Therefore it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

¶4Notice of motion.

¶5Learned State counsel who appeared on advance notice of the petition, is ready to argue the matter and has submitted with great stress that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. He has been controller of examination with the Board. The equivalence of this Board was obtained in an illegal manner after colluding with the officers of Chhattisgarh Educational Board. The same had been cancelled on 07.03.2015, however, still mark-sheets were issued by the said Board in the year 2016 and 2018. These mark-sheets are bearing the signatures of the petitioner and it cannot be assumed by any stretch of imagination that he being a literate person was not aware of the fact that the Board was not having any equivalence and was declared as void after cancellation of its equivalence way back in the year 2015. The appending of signatures on the mark-sheets itself proved his complicity in the offences for which he has been booked. His custodial interrogation is required to elicit the important information. t is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to

CRM-M No.35752 of 2024                                        -4-

secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discussion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such  grant  to  some  extent  interferes  in  the  sphere  of  investigation  of  an offence. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist  to  resort  to  that  extra  ordinary  remedy.  In  the  present  case,  no  such exceptional  circumstances  warranting  exercise  of  the  powers  for  grant  of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

7.     It  is  clarified  that  observations  made  hereinabove  shall  not  be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8.     Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application if any is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA)

05.08.2024                  JUDGE Jyoti-IVk Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM-M No.35752 of 2024 Date of decision: 05.08.2024 MD. SULTAN BHARTI …. Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present : Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ****