N.V Ramana, J.— Leave granted. This criminal appeal is filed by the State of Bihar against the final judgment and order dated 14-2-2017 passed in Amit Kumar v. State of Bihar Amit Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine Pat 675, by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein the High Court has passed the following order: (SCC OnLine Pat para 9)
“9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, especially the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, First, 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 cooperate with the trial of the case and shall not indulge in any educational activity till the conclusion of the trial or any other 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.”
2. Aggrieved by the above order of the High Court, granting conditional bail to the respondent, the State of Bihar is in appeal before us.
3. 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 the 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 PS Case No. 270 of 2016 dated 6-6-2016 was registered before Kotwali Police Station, Patna under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of the 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.
4. Assailing the impugned order of the High Court, which granted conditional bail to the respondent, learned Senior Counsel Mr Sidharth 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 kingpin of what is publicly 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 setting aside of the impugned order which granted conditional bail for the respondent.
5. Per contra the 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, the learned Senior Counsel for the 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 the co-accused cannot be taken into account as the same is inadmissible in the eye of the 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.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, 1986 4 SCC 767, 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 Masroor v. State of U.P Masroor v. State of U.P, 2009 14 SCC 286, 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 Sanjay Chandra v. CBI Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2012 1 SCC 40, 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.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
8. 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 the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar.
9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. 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 crores were recovered besides Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of various students, letterheads and rubber stamps of several authorities, admit cards, illegal firearm, 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 diary. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of the State of Bihar.
10. 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 the 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 respondent-accused, with those who were on bail, as the respondent is alleged to be the kingpin of the entire crime.
11. Although there is no quarrel with respect to the legal propositions canvassed by the learned counsel, it should be noted that there is no straitjacket 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.
12. We are of the considered opinion that Sanjay Chandra, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the 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 Sections 4095, 465, 4676, 468, 471, 188, 201, 212 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 87, 98, 13(1)(c)/(d) read with Section 13(2)9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198810. Therefore, Sanjay Chandra provides no assistance for the respondent herein.
13. We are also conscious that if 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 bail11. Usually socio-economic offence has deep-rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fibre of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously.
14. 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 investigating authority concerned to file the charge-sheet within a month, as the case involves almost 32 accused and a complex modus operandi.
15. 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 respondent-accused 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.