ABA/1044/2023 of PAWAN UMRAO Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Anticipatory Bail Application No.1044 of 2023

Pawan Umrao ….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Special Counsel for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Pawan Umrao seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.22 of 2022, under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Sections 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Cyber, District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, in an examination conducted by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Dehradun (“the Commission”) complaints were received with regard to use of unfair means.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has no role to do in the matter. He was not an employee of NSEIT. He was merely employee of CIPL. His role was to see that the computer systems are working properly or if there is any error to attend them.

5. Learned counsel for the Commission would submit that the applicant was Chief Protector at the examination centre at Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology. He under conspiracy helped some candidates to use unfair means in the examination centre. They placed certain sheets outside the reach of CCTV Camera. It is argued that one of such accused Sachin Kumar’s bail has already been rejected by this Court. Learned counsel has referred to the statement of one Sagar Kumar, who was also working in the centre and he has stated that, in fact, the applicant was involved in facilitating use of unfair means by the students for consideration.

6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage,

shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

7. The co-accused Sachin Kumar’s Second Bail Application No.150 of 2023, Sachin Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand, was rejected on 10.11.2023. It has CCTV footages also in paras 10 and 11 of this bail order which observed as follows:-

“10. Annexure 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit are details of CCTV footages. It reveals the chronology that took place on that date. Even if Vishal is not named as witness in the charge sheet; it makes less difference at this stage. Admittedly, Vishal was candidate. He has been examined under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He may very well be examined by the Court at trial.

11. It is case of using unfair means in the public examination. It is serious offence. Whatever material is available before this Court at this stage, commands this Court to reject the bail application.”

8. One of the witnesses Sagar Gurung, who was also working in the same Centre has also stated that, in fact, the applicant was also facilitating the candidates, to use unfair means for consideration and this witness Sagar Gurung was also offered to assist them, which he denied.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to grant him anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected.

10. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Ravi

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 21.03.2024