Ashish v. State Of Haryana
!" # $%&%!'
(( &)%&) ((((( % %!' * + *&,& - !"
*.
'
((((( &/!'# '
01 ( - - 2
- 24 (
!"# $%&'( '& )')& ($%()'!* + + +
As per the facts of the case, the FIR was lodged on the statement of Satyaveer, Principal Central School, Hisar Cant. It was alleged that the examination of Class 10th Science subject was going on at Central School, Hisar Cant. During examination, the Instructor Raj Kumar and Sangeeta were checking the photos and the suspicion arose regarding Roll No.17162779. On asking, the candidate appeared in the examination disclosed his name as Rahul son of Naresh whereas, this Roll Number belonged to Ashish son of Arvind Nain, private student. The answer book was recovered and Rahul was produced before the Authorities for further necessary action. On the basis of the statement, FIR was registered and investigation commenced. The allegations against the petitioner were found to be of causing appearance of Rahul in the
examination in his place. Rahul was arrested on the spot while appearing in the examination in place of petitioner-Ashish. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing counsel for the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar declined the same vide his order dated 05.04.2023. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner had approached this Court earlier by way of filing a similar petition bearing No.CRM-M-19225-2023, however, the same was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2023. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court by way of filing this second petition.
It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a young boy of 19 years of age who has been falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that in view of the allegations made against the petitioner, no offence under Section 419 IPC is made out against him. He submits that in view of the allegations made, the whole case of the prosecution is based upon the documentary evidence and thus, no case for the custodial interrogation is made out against the petitioner. Thus, he has submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Heard. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is apparent that the prima facie case against the petitioner is that the co-accused namely, Rahul was appearing in the examination in his place, who has already been arrested by the Investigating Agency. As evident from the record, petitioner was the beneficiary of the alleged
offence as Instructors found during checking that Roll No.17162779 was issued in the name of petitioner whereas, co-accused Rahul was found to be appearing in his place. The investigation is at threshold.
(&,-$.* * /
!
"
#
$
"
$
%
"
& "
$
&
&
' &
$
() /
+0 *
!/
* /
+/ /
1 / *(+
&
&
&
$
( ,
#
#
$
&
$
(
-
( .
$
/
"
0
$
( .
$
$ $
&
( .
/
#
#
1
$ $
2
2
$ #
$
( .
$ ! (
& ! 456 * ! 7
$
$
! $ ! 8*4
( +
( :
#
( $
$
#
(
+0 *
"
# $%& %
%
5(
-+
$ $
! 8*9
( +
#
$ $ ( !
$
# $ $
( ;
$
( .
&
( .
$
#
$
(
/ / //
* )'
'( )')&
Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie found. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation.
5
+0 * ' ( )# " *' !
!$& $ #
"& +
0* * 0
!/ 2
/ # 3
(( 6 - 2 7
(
45 6 76# 4 76#