SATINDER HOODA Vs. STATE OF U.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Satinder Hooda has filed the present petition under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short - 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.201 dtd. 11/10/2017 under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short - 'IPC'), registered at Police Station - North, Chandigarh.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas no offence is made out against him and he was not involved in the commission of offence. The present FIR was registered on the basis of statement given by complainant Kuldeep Singh, Inspector, SIT, Police Station 31, Chandigarh. As per allegations in the present FIR, the petitioner was involved in another case i.e. FIR No.128 dtd. 29/7/2016 under Ss. 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Ss. 8, 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station West, Sector 11, Chandigarh, relating to leakage of the papers of JBT, TGT and PGT, which were conducted in the months of January/February, 2015. He was arrested in that case on 22/11/2016. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other co-accused appeared before learned Magistrate and the complainant party filed an application for obtaining police remand, which was granted. After investigation, the petitioner was sent in judicial custody. In that case the petitioner was released on regular bail by the trial Court on 15/12/2016. Challan was presented and the petitioner was appearing in the Court on each and every date of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that the present FIR was registered subsequently on 11/10/2017 relating to the same occurrence as was in FIR No.128 dtd. 29/7/2016 and name of the petitioner was not mentioned. The second FIR cannot be registered relating to the same occurrence and allegations. In the subsequent FIR neither the petitioner has been named nor any specific role has been attributed to him. Only on obtaining legal opinion, the present FIR has been registered. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR is misuse of process of law and it is a case of double jeopardy. The petitioner has joined investigation as and when asked for by the Investigating Officer and as per direction issued by this Court. No purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent-UT, Chandigarh has not disputed the factum of joining of investigation. However, he has opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation and he has also failed to produce the documents of his identity. He has refused to answer certain queries put by the Investigating Officer. Learned State counsel further submits that certain questions have come to the notice of the Investigating Officer regarding involvement of the petitioner in leakage of the papers. He also submits that during interrogation, the petitioner has disclosed in his disclosure statement that he along with four more candidates of TGT, in connivance with accused Dinesh Yadav and Mithlesh Pandey alias Guruji, were involved in leakage of paper at Lukhnow. The CDR record of Mobile No.9991155688 of accused-petitioner was procured, which shows his involvement in the leakage of not only the papers of the earlier exam but the subsequent exams also. By considering those allegations, the subsequent FIR was registered, which relates to different examination and not to the earlier one. In the subsequent examination the involvement of the petitioner was found. For verifying those queries, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.