Crl.
Misc.
not M-17191 of 2012 & 1 Crl.
Misc.
not M-17785 of 2012 .IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1
Criminal Misc.
not M-17191 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 17th, 2013 Deepak Dahiya ...Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh...Respondent 2.
Criminal Misc.
not M-17785 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 17th, 2013 Pritam Singh ...Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present Mr.J.S.Mehdiratta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, Standing counsel for CBI.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Deepak Dahiya, the petitioner by way of Criminal Misc.
not M- 17191 of 2012 and Pritam Singh, the petitioner by way of Criminal Misc.
not M-17785 of 2012 seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of Crl.
Misc.
not M-17191 of 2012 & 2 Crl.
Misc.
not M-17785 of 2012 .FIR not RC-CHG-0002012-A-0010 dated 27.3.2012 with Police Station CBI, Chandigarh (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 420, 511, 468 and 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In May, 2011 Staff Selection Commission (for short, “the Commission”.) issued recruitment notice for the post of Inspectors in Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB).Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) etc.The petitioners took the said examination alongwith 16 other candidates at the sub centre allotted to them and failed to clear that examination.
However, seven toppers of the country were found to have appeared in the examination at the sub centre where the petitioners took the examination.
Enquiry was, consequently, conducted by CBI which revealed that Naveen Sehgal, Deputy Regional Director of the Commission abused his official position and committed criminal misconduct in connivance with Saurabh Kant, a partner of M/s SOFTPRO Consultants.
The conduct of the examination was manipulated and the petitioners as well as others tried to cheat the Commission.
It also surfaced during enquiry that the process of allotting ticket numbers using 'pseudo random number generation technique' was used by M/s SOFTPRO Consultants and the persons who were in league with him were given seats in a room where the petitioners were the solvers of the papeRs.It was further revealed that the petitioners had helped the toppers against consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Crl.
Misc.
not M-17191 of 2012 & 3 Crl.
Misc.
not M-17785 of 2012 .petitioners were having jobs inferior to the post of Inspectors in Narcotic Control Bureau.
According to him, with a view to enhance their post and emoluments, they applied for selection to this post and took the examination and unfortunately failed.
According to him, the petitioners have joined the investigation and whatever was asked from them, has been given by them.
According to him, none other than the petitioners is on the hit list of the respondent-CBI.
According to him, the persons at the top of this controveRs.as well as the seven toppers have not been touched by the CBI.
Learned standing counsel for CBI has submitted, on the other hand, that the seating plan was changed and seven toppers of the examination were accommodated in one room.
According to him, the petitioners were the solvers of the papers and it was M/s SOFTPRO Consultants, who had changed the seating plan.
He admits that M/s SOFTPRO Consultants or the Deputy Regional Director of the Commission, who as per the preliminary enquiry, committed criminal misconduct as also the seven toppers have not been arrested in this case.
He has admitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation but according to him, they are not cooperating with the investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to find out the details of the conspiracy.
It is undisputed case of the parties that the petitioners were occupying positions lower than the position they would have occupied if selected to the advertised posts for which they appeared in the examination.
It is also not the case of the CBI that the petitioners did not Crl.
Misc.
not M-17191 of 2012 & 4 Crl.
Misc.
not M-17785 of 2012 .attempt their own paper or have marginally attempted their papeRs.If the petitioners were the solvers of the papeRs.they would not have attempted their own papers and at least would not have attempted the whole paper because of being busy with helping the toppeRs.In view of these facts, the persons who appeared to be relevant for questioning to find out the exact dimensions of the conspiracy are the Deputy Regional Director of the Commission, Saurabh Kant partner of M/s SOFTPRO Consultants and the toppers of the examination who are said to have received help.
The petitioners have also joined the investigation and have assisted the investigation by furnishing the respondent with every thing demanded from them.
In this view of the matter, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitioners seem to be entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
The petitions are, consequently, allowed and the orders dated 1.6.2012 and 8.6.2012 passed by this Court granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners are made absolute.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE January 17th, 2013 som