HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 02.03.2023
Pronounced on: 15.03.2023

Bail App. No. 10/2023

Karnail Singh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Q
Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate
Vs
Union Territory of J&K and another .…. Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.) seeking bail in a case arising

out of FIR bearing Crime No. RC0042022A0008 for offences under

Sections 201, 408, 411, 420 and 120-B IPC registered with Police Station,

CBI, Jammu.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that pursuant to the decision

of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) conducted investigation into the allegations of

irregularities in written examination of Sub Inspector posts in the Jammu

and Kashmir Police that was conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir

Service Selection Board (for short, the J&K SSB). The aforesaid decision

was taken by the Government pursuant to the report of the Enquiry

Committee constituted by the Government. As per the report of the

Enquiry Committee, there was a criminal conspiracy among the officials

of J&K SSB, M/s Merit Trac Bengaluru, beneficiary candidates and other
 2 Bail App No. 10/2023

accused persons, as result of which, gross irregularities were committed in

the conduct of written examination of Sub Inspector posts in the J&K

Police. The said examination was conducted by the J&K SSB on

27.03.2022 and its result was announced on 04.06.2022. The Government

of Jammu and Kashmir after receiving complaints with regard to

irregularities committed in the conduct of the examination, decided to

cancel the examination and transfer the investigation to the CBI on

08.07.2022. This was done pursuant to the report of the Enquiry

Committee.

3. The summary of the investigation conducted by the CBI as contained in

the charge-sheet filed by the said agency before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jammu, is reproduced as under:

19. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, statement of

witnesses and documents collected during investigation, it is
established that the accused Yatin Yadav entered into criminal
conspiracy with other accused persons. In pursuance to the said
criminal conspiracy, accused Pradeep Kumar, employee of KYR
Infosys Pvt. Ltd. committed criminal breach of trust and stole the
question paper of JKPSI exam and dishonestly handed over the
same to accused Yatin Yadav. In pursuance to criminal conspiracy
accused Yatin Yadav contacted other accused persons namely, Anil
Kumar, Surender Singh, Bajinder Singh to arrange candidates for
sale of question paper. In pursuance to criminal conspiracy,
accused Surender Singh arranged candidate Akshay Kumar through
accused Kashmir Singh and Asheesh Yadav arranged candidate
Mukhtar Ahmed. Both these candidates were provided leaked
question paper at Rewari. In pursuance to criminal conspiracy,
accused Anil Kumar contacted accused Ashwani Kumar and Pawan
Kumar to solicit candidates. Accused Bajinder Singh also solicited
candidates through Sanjay Kumar Dutta (investigation on this
aspect in underway). In furtherance to criminal conspiracy, accused
Ashwani Kumar contacted accused persons namely Kewal Krishan,
Raman Sharma, Jagdish Lal, Amit Sharma, Suresh Kumar, Rakesh
for arranging candidates. In furtherance to criminal conspiracy,
candidates were taken to Karnal and provided leaked question
paper in lieu of money. In the entire offence, accused Ashok @
Ashok Pandit, Asheesh Yadav, Sulinder helped the accused in
distributing question papers and in booking hotels. In pursuance to
criminal conspiracy, accused Ashwani Kujmar and other accused
persons of J&K made arrangements for providing leaked question
paper to candidates at Gangyal. The accused Jagdish Lal further
entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Dr. Karnail Singh,
Shubam Kala and others and distributed leaked question paper at
 3 Bail App No. 10/2023

the residence of accused Dr. Karnail Singh. Investigation

established the role of candidates accused Jaisuriya Sharma,
Tarsem Lal and Vikas Sharma in as much as they joined the
criminal conspiracy actively participating in the same. They also
accessed the leaked question paper themselves. Due to illegal
access of question paper before the exam, these and other
candidates secured position in the merit list published by JKSSB on
04.06.2022. The JKSSB was deceived into believing that the
correct answers marked by these candidates were because of their
merit but the actual position was that these candidates had adopted
unfair means and had illegally accessed the question paper. As
such, above mentioned accused persons, in criminal conspiracy
with one another, cheated the JKSSB. Investigation revealed that
the accused have leaked question papers of the other exams also.
Investigation revealed that the accused also burnt the leaked
question paper to destroy evidence.
20. Therefore, the accused persons have committed offences
punishable under sections 120-B r/w 420, 411, 408 and 201 of IPC
and substantive offences thereof.”

4. The petitioner has contended that he has been wrongly and falsely

implicated in the aforesaid criminal case by the CBI. It has been submitted

that the petitioner is a Doctor by profession holding the post of

CMO/Commandant Medical in the Border Security Force and that he has

unblemished service career to his credit. It has been averred that upon

search of the premises of the petitioner, no incriminating material was

recovered by the Investigating Agency. It is further averred that the

petitioner has duly associated himself with the investigation and that the

investigation is complete inasmuch as the charge sheet stands already filed

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. It has been

submitted that previous bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by

this Court in terms of order dated 30.11.2022 and by that time, charge

sheet had not been laid before the learned trial court. On this ground, it is

urged that due to change in the situation, the petitioner deserves to be

enlarged on bail. It has further been contended that even as per the charge

sheet, there is no material against the petitioner to connect him with the

alleged conspiracy. Lastly, it has been submitted that the wife of the
 4 Bail App No. 10/2023

petitioner is suffering from a life consuming decease of bone marrow

cancer and that she needs constant care and attention of the petitioner. It

has also been submitted that the petitioner himself is suffering from

psychiatric problems and his health is deteriorating day by day. On these

grounds, the petitioner has sought bail in the aforesaid case.

5. The application has been resisted by the respondent-CBI by filing the

reply thereto. In its reply, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner

has resorted to filing of repeated bail applications before this Court and

before the court of CJM, Jammu as well as the Sessions Judge without any

change of circumstances and as such, the present bail application is not

maintainable. The respondent has, after stating the role of the petitioner in

the alleged conspiracy, submitted that the petitioner is the main accused

and the kingpin of the conspiracy. It has been further submitted that

though charge-sheet against the petitioner and 23 other accused has been

filed, yet further investigation is underway to unearth the larger conspiracy

as also to trace proceeds of the crime. It has further been submitted that

role of other accused persons as well as the other allegations levelled in

the FIR is yet to be investigated. According to the respondent, the

petitioner is a habitual offender inasmuch as another FIR bearing No.

RC0042022A0011 has been registered on 28.11.2022 against the

petitioner which relates to the allegations of irregularities in the written

examination of the Finance Accounts Assistants conducted by the J&K

SSB. Regarding the medical ground, the respondent has submitted that

there are other family members who can take care of wife of the petitioner

and that the petitioner is being given appropriate medical treatment while
 5 Bail App No. 10/2023

in custody in terms of the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jammu. On these grounds, the respondent has sought dismissal of the bail

application of the petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the

case.

7. So far as the principles governing the grant or refusal of bail are

concerned, the same have been elucidated in a large number of judgments

rendered by the Supreme Court and our own High Court. These principles

may be summarised as under:

i) the gravity of the offence and nature of accusation including

severity of punishment in the case of conviction.
ii) the position and status of the accused vis a vis
victims/witness.
iii) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.
iv) the possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence
and or witness and obstructing the course of justice.
v) the possibility of the repetition of the offence
vi) the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge including frivolity of the charge.
vii) stage of the investigation
viii) larger interest of the public or the state.

8. The Supreme Court in Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar and anr, (2020) 2 SCC

118, while discussing the amplitude and power of the Court under section

439 Cr.P.C. has observed as under:

“12 The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail
involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature
of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view
of the involvement of the accused are important. No straight jacket
formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or
rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the
grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis
of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
 6 Bail App No. 10/2023

commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial.

However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the
continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the
criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court,
an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by
the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.”

9. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Brijmani Devi v Pappu

Kumar and another, (2022)4 SCC 497, after surveying the law on the

subject for grant or refusal of bail, observed as under:

35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an

individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while
considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the
serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the
facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the
accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but
are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to
enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While
considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie
conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at
after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on
record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the
nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any,
and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-
à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.

36. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned

orders [Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat
2856] , [Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857]
above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are
the only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of the High
Court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited
judgments, it is not necessary for a court to give elaborate
reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the
initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused
would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be
elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is
one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an
acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of
bail. At the same time, a balance would have to be struck
between the nature of the allegations made against the accused;
severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond
reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused;
tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the
prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima
facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against the
accused.
 7 Bail App No. 10/2023

37. Ultimately, the court considering an application for bail

has to exercise discretion in a judicious manner and in accordance
with the settled principles of law having regard to the crime
alleged to be committed by the accused on the one hand and
ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other.

10. From the foregoing enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that

overriding considerations, in granting bail as have laid down in Section

437(1) and Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C, are nature and gravity of the

offence, the frivolity or otherwise of the prosecution case, the position and

status of the accused with reference to the victim and witness, the

likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the chances of repeating of

offence by the accused, the chances of tampering with the witnesses, the

stage of investigation and the public interest. While in section 437 Cr.P.C,

certain restrictions and conditions have been laid down for grant of bail in

a court, the power to grant bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. for the High

Court or the Sessions Court is wider.

11. In light of the position of law as analysed hereinbefore, let us now

consider the facts of the instant case. As per the charge-sheet, the role of

the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy relating to the leak of the question

paper is of paramount importance. According to the prosecution, the

petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with the accused Jagdish

Sharma, Shubam Kala, Vijay Kumar and others and pursuant to the said

conspiracy, he made arrangements for providing access to the leaked

question papers to his son-Shubam Kala at Gangyal. Accordingly, leaked

question papers was brought to the residence of the petitioner by accused

Jagdish Lal and three candidates were provided the leaked question paper

at the residents of the petitioner with his connivance and in his presence. It

was revealed that on the direction of the petitioner, driver of his official
 8 Bail App No. 10/2023

vehicle, Ajay Kumar picked up accused Shubam Kala in the vehicle on

26.03.2022 from the desired place. On the morning of 27.03.2022, the

driver, Ajay Kumar brought accused Shubam Kala, accused Jagidish Lal

and Paras Sharma near Asia Hotel, Jammu and later on he brought them to

the residence of the petitioner. The investigation has revealed that the

petitioner was in touch with the accused Jagdish Lal and Vijay Kumar

during the relevant period and on the date of examination, he had made

three calls to Ashok Kumar, Controller of the Examination, J&K SSB.

The petitioner was also in constant touch with his driver-Ajay Kumar

during the relevant period. It has also been established that the accused

Jagdish Lal who had stolen one of the leaked question paper brought the

same to the residence of the petitioner for selling it to the candidates and

the petitioner was in constant touch with the said Jagdish Lal.

12. From the aforesaid allegations made in the charge sheet, which are

supported by the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency during

the course of the case, it is clear that the petitioner has played a vital role

in the conspiracy relating to leak and subsequent sale of question papers

for selection to the posts of Sub Inspector that was being conducted by the

J&K SSB. The charges levelled against the petitioner cannot, therefore, be

termed as baseless as has been contended by the learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner.

13. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner that investigation in the case is complete and the charge sheet

has been laid before the learned Magistrate, as such, the petitioner

deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is true that the charge sheet has already
 9 Bail App No. 10/2023

been laid before the learned Magistrate but in the charge sheet, it is clearly

mentioned that further investigation to unearth larger conspiracy, to trace

proceeds of crime, to establish role of other accused persons and to probe

other allegations levelled in the FIR is underway. In the charge sheet, it is

clearly mentioned that on certain aspects of the case, the investigation is

still underway. The investigation relating to the role of the petitioner to the

extent of his dealings with one of the kingpins accused-Jagdish Lal may

be over but then investigation into the larger conspiracy is still underway

and as such, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

that investigation in the case is complete, cannot be accepted.

14. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

that the maximum sentence provided for the offences for which the

petitioner has been booked is, seven years of imprisonment and as such,

there is no statutory or legal bar to grant of bail in favour of the petitioner.

There can be no doubt about the fact that the petitioner is stated to be

involved in offences which do not carry punishment of imprisonment of

more than seven years but the nature of accusations against the petitioner

makes the crime alleged to have been committed by him extremely

heinous. The severity of punishment that the charge may entail may be

one of the considerations for grant of bail, but then nature and seriousness

of allegations against a person seeking bail is also of vital importance. A

person, who indulges in facilitating leakage and sale of question papers

relating to competitive examinations, plays with the career and future of

thousands of young aspirants. Such an act is more heinous than an offence

of murder because by killing a person only one family gets affected but by
 10 Bail App No. 10/2023

ruining the career of thousands of aspirants, whole society is adversely

impacted. Therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioner can by no

stretch of imagination be termed as ordinary charges.

15. The Supreme Court in Ghulabrao Baburao Deokar vs. State of

Maharashtra, (2013) 16 SCC 190 has observed that nature and

seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are

always important consideration in such a case and they must squarely be

dealt with by the court while passing an order on bail application.

16. In Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme

Court while dealing with the bail application relating to the economic

offences has observed as under:

“34) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited

with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence
having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35) 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.”

17. From the foregoing analysis of law relating to grant of bail in economic

offences which affect a larger section of the society, the mere fact that the

offence with which an accused is charged does not carry a very severe

punishment, by itself is not a ground to enlarge the accused on bail having

regard to the large scale ramifications of the acts of such nature. The

petitioner, therefore, on this ground also does not deserve the concession

of bail.
 11 Bail App No. 10/2023

18. Apart from the above, the conduct of the petitioner also weighs heavily

against him. It has been submitted by the respondent that another FIR

relating to question paper leakage of Finance Accounts Assistant

examination conducted by the J&K SSB has been registered in which role

of the petitioner has surfaced. Not only this, even the report of the Enquiry

Committee set up by the Government is damning against the petitioner. In

the said report, it has been noted that the petitioner had managed to induct

several candidates in the BSF against financial consideration and that he

had advertised secretly that he would help prospective candidates in

passing the medical tests. The report further records that the petitioner has

close links with some high and mighty politicians. In the face of the

propensity of the petitioner to indulge in similar types of offences, it may

not be appropriate to enlarge him on bail at this stage when the

investigation relating to the larger conspiracy of question paper leakage of

Sub Inspector posts is still underway.

19. That takes us to the grant of bail on medical grounds as has been projected

by the petitioner. So far as wife of the petitioner is concerned, there are

other family members in his family including his son who can take care of

her ailments. The petitioner himself is not shown to have been suffering

from any such ailment that cannot be managed while keeping him in

custody. Therefore, on this ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to

grant of bail.

20. Lastly, it is required to be noticed that the petitioner has moved repeated

bail applications before this Court as well as courts below ever since he

was arrested in the case on 18.10.2022 without any success. On

 12 Bail App No. 10/2023

27.10.2022, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu rejected the first

bail application of the petitioner. On 30.11.2022, bail application of the

petitioner was rejected by this Court. On 06.12.2022, petitioner moved

another bail application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and

the same was rejected on 23.12.2022. On 26.12.2022, another bail

application was moved by the petitioner before the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Jammu and the same was dismissed on 11.01.2023.

Without wasting any time, the petitioner again moved the instant bail

application before this Court on 16.01.2023. There can be no dispute to

the legal position that an accused can maintain a bail application before a

superior court once his application for grant of bail by the subordinate

court has been rejected without there being any change of circumstances

but then the petitioner has not been able to persuade this Court or to take a

view different from the one taken by the courts below.

21. Even at the time when earlier bail application of the petitioner filed before

this Court was considered and thereafter decided, the investigation of the

case was complete. In fact, on 11.11.2022 orders were reserved by this

Court in the previous bail application of the petitioner and on the very next

date i.e. on 12.11.2022, the respondent filed charge sheet against the

petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu meaning thereby

that there has been no change of circumstances after the rejection of the

petitioner’s earlier bail application by this Court on 30.11.2022 till the

filing of the instant bail application. On this ground also, the petitioner

does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

 13 Bail App No. 10/2023

22. For all what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the

instant bail application. The same is dismissed. However, the respondent-

Investigating Agency is directed to complete the further investigation in

the case and file supplementary charge sheet, if any, expeditiously,

preferably within a period of three months from today.

23. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

Jammu
15.03.2023
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No