High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8242/2024dismissed

Parveen v. State Of Haryana

2024-07-10Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra5 pages

"#$#%&'

()*+

& ,-./.

# $$$

.01-2& %

'() **

"/ -. 0

21.12.2023 Ambala Cantt, District Ambala 420 and 120-B of IPC, 1860 (section 419 of IPC and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act (Amendment) Act, 2008 added later on) 1 2

1331141(

, ,

" 5

0 *

6 # * 7 &

8, &

" "

" & &9*/::;<4<=+

, , " , . ,

*& ,"

*& ,

? ,, 5@A+ "

" & + ,"

" "

, " B

% "

& , 5 " C

& + " B

+ "

" + ,

, "

, ,

, &

" +

2 D " 1<31141(

1:31141(

, ,

, "

" +

3:( **& * %

/ &

& *

9, & 1@43141' ( %

2 " -.

" 5

& "

& &

" "

, "

& " B

, 5

& ,

" 4.

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State, as per which, the petitioner was master of the crime and it was infact he who had supplied answer sheets for solving papers for recruitment of examination for

Indian Army. The investigation has revealed that he even used to manage false persons to appear in examination by impersonating the original candidates. His custodial interrogation is very much required. It is further argued that the petitioner has even tried to breach the security of the country by committing the said offence. It is, therefore, argued that he does not deserve to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

The petitioner is alleged to be master of a gang/racket constituted for ensuring selection in the recruitment process carried by the defence services by cheating the department by providing phones connecting devices and answer keys to the candidates. As per the allegations, it was he who had supplied answer key and mobile phones to the co-accused Virender, Sunil and Sushil who further facilitated providing of answer keys to the candidates appearing in the examination conducted by the army authorities. The allegations against the petitioner are quite grave and serious in nature. It is well settled proposition of law that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well and ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in identifying the chain of the offenders.

eliciting the truth and for conducting thorough investigation in the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7.

.4 '

()*+0