This case analysis has been written by By: Uthra Varadharajan
The high court of Gauhati rejected bail applications observing that the act of leaking question papers is an organized crime and that this is an offence against the society at large. The leak of such materials damages the future of our younger generation.
Since all the three bail applications have arisen out of the same FIR, they were disposed of by this common judgment and order.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The State Level Police Recruitment Board published an advertisement seeking on-line application from the eligible candidates for filling up 597 posts of S.I. of Police in Assam Police. More than 90,000 candidates filed their applications. Out of them, about 66,000 candidates downloaded the E-Admit cards for appearing in the examination, but before that, the question papers were leaked and circulated in WhatsApp, as a result of which, the written test was cancelled.
Saroj Sarma was found to be one of the prime accused along with Rubul Hazarika, Prasanta Kumar Dutta, Kumar Sanjit Krishna and others. The accused leaked the question papers through WhatsApp and other means for a huge sum of money. Accused Rubul Hazarika took photograph of the leaked question papers from the custodian, i.e., Kumar Sanjit Krishna, the then Superintendent of Police, in exchange of rupees forty lakhs. Diban Deka, a close associate of Saroj Sarma got a set of the leaked papers and prepared model question papers and cleverly added some additional questions to conceal the criminal activity. The model test was held with the promise for the job in exchange for a huge amount of money.
CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES
Both the petitioners, namely, Saroj Sarma and Diban Deka have pleaded that their period of detention already undergone in judicial custody deserves to be taken as a ground for releasing them on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to compare the present allegation against the petitioners with the infamous scams that have taken place in our country. The learned counsel have similarly submitted that some persons, who are charge sheeted have been released on bail.
The counsel for the state held that in the case in hand dozens of persons are booked as each of them had played different roles in the alleged act. So, if one person is released on bail, the other is not entitled to claim a similar view.
JUDGEMENT AND OBSERVATION OF THE COURT
The principle of parity was brought forward in the court and regarding the same, it was held in the case of Neeru Yadav vs state of UP that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. The law on the point is clear. It is extremely difficult to apply the principle of parity in law in the matters relating to bail applications filed under 439 CrPC.
Having carefully considering all the materials, the judges held that this is an organized crime and such acts will affect the younger generation of the country. They held that the same act cannot be compared with scams involving millions of rupees. This court was satisfied that there were prima facie materials against the present petitioners. Therefore, this court finds no reason to agree with the prayer made by the petitioners. Accordingly, the bail applications of Saroj Sarma and Diban Deka were rejected.
All the bail applications were disposed of.