SANJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAV Vs. STATE OF U.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Sanjay Kumar Srivastav 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 - Sector-3 (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. Earlier 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 was registered at Police Station West, Sector 11, Chandigarh, wherein allegations against the petitioner were of leakage of JBT and TGT papers conducted by Chandigarh Education Department. On the same set of allegations this FIR has been registered just to harass the petitioner by involving him in a false case, which is misuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submits that in the earlier FIR, he was granted bail under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. The present FIR has been registered by the U.T., police just to save their own skin from the departmental proceedings. The petition filed by the petitioner before the Court below has been dismissed without mentioning any specific reason, whereas the petitioner is ready to join investigation and to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court. He has joined investigation as and when directed by this Court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 819 and T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala 2001(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 436.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent-U.T., Chandigarh has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that though the petitioner has joined investigation but he has not cooperated with investigating agency. Not only the allegations are different in both the FIRs but the examinations are also different and leakage of papers was there on the part of the petitioner and other co-accused. Petitioner was given various opportunities but he did not cooperate with the investigating agency as neither any information required by the investigating agency was supplied nor the queries put by the Investigating Officer were responded. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has failed to produce his identity and has not answered the query relating to talk on mobile phone with other co-accused.