Praveen Kumar v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-2866 of 2022 Date of Decision: 25.01.2022 Praveen Kumar ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

The petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case arising from the FIR No. 343 dated 19.12.2021, registered under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 205 & 120-B IPC and Section 8 of the Haryana Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2021, at Police Station Sadar, Kaithal, District Kaithal. 2.

As per the case of the prosecution, one Sanjay used to help the candidates to impersonate in the recruitment examinations held for the public employment. At the relevant time, the entrance examination to the post of Constables in the Haryana Police was going on. On the basis of an information, the case was registered and Sanjay and others were apprehended during the search of his house. The petitioner has been named as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. As CHETAN THAKUR 2022.01.28 17:39 I attest to the accuracy of this document.

Criminal Misc. No. M-2866 of 2022 per the police, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, to extract information about the involvement of the other co-officials, who used to get biometric attendance of the impersonated candidates verified. 3.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the disclosure statement of a co-accused is not admissible in evidence and the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. 4.

This Court has considered the submissions, however, did not find any substance therein. The petitioner is in the government service. He is alleged to be involved in helping the candidates to impersonate during the entrance examination. As per the prosecution, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner to find out information about the entire impersonation racket including the manner in which biometric attendance of candidates was being managed.

5.

Hence, no ground is made out to grant the concession of prearrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 25, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No CHETAN THAKUR 2022.01.28 17:39 I attest to the accuracy of this document.