AMAR DUTT, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 22368-M, 23981-M and 28425-M of 2000 filed by Anurag Gupta, Dr. Sodhi Ram and Dhan Singh respectively.
(2.) THE case No. RC-27/98-CHG against the petitioners was registered by the C.B.I. on 21.7.1998 on a complaint sent by Shri M.M. Puri, Vice Chancellor, Panjab University, Chandigarh on 10.6.1998, when a report was received by him from a two-member Committee set up by him, consisting of Prof. IBS Passi, the then Dean University (Instruction) and Prof. Dina Nath Johar from the Department of Law to enquire into a report appearing in the Chandigarh Newsline of Indian Express dated 26.5.1998 regarding leakage of question papers which were being set by the University for various examinations that were being held by it, to the effect that leakage of question papers had been taking place for the last few years and a regular investigation by an independent agency should be got conducted in relation to this lapse. After a protracted investigation which continued for about two years, the C.B.I. had submitted a charge sheet against Sarvshri Sodhi Ram, Anurag Gupta, Sukhwinder Singh, Dhan Singh and Ashwani Kumar Gupta under Section 120-B read with Section 420, IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the filing of the charge sheet, during the pendency of these bail applications, the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners under Section 120-B read with Section 420, IPC and dropped the charges that the C.B.I. was asking to be framed against the petitioners under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Bail applications have been filed by Anurag Gupta, Dr. Sodhi Ram and Dhan Singh asserting that no admissible evidence has been collected which would prove that the petitioners were responsible for leakage of questions papers as the statements of the petitioners which were recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. during investigation would be inadmissible and could not be used in evidence against them. According to them, the statements of Dhan Singh and Amritpal Singh recorded before the police during the investigation about how the leakage took place and who all were responsible thereof would not be admissible either against Dhan Singh or his co-accused. Similarly, the presence of a letter written by Amritpal to the D.U.I. after it was marked to the Controller of Examinations i.e. Dr. Sodhi Ram and its ultimate recovery from the drawer of Dr. Sodhi Ram would be of no assistance to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused. There is, even according to the C.B.I., various stages at which the leakage could have taken place and the material relied upon by the investigation agency for ruling out the possibility of the leakage of paper having taken place at any other stage than the office of the Controller of Examinations is too weak to be made the basis of returning any firm finding against the petitioners. The fact that no evidence has been collected as to how the leakage has taken place as also who all were involved prior to 1998 is indicative of the mala fide with which the investigation has been conducted. It was also submitted that the statements of 12 beneficiaries which are stated to be relied upon for bringing home of the charge against the accused would be of no assistance unless some of them are made approvers in the case. In view of this as also the circumstance that the Senate of the Panjab University had refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of Dr. Sodhi Ram, the case sought to be built up against the petitioners is very weak and should not be made the basis of the continued detention of the petitioners. It was also submitted that even if the allegations which have been made out against the petitioners are accepted to be correct, there is no material on the basis of which a charge under Section 120-B read with Section 420, IPC could be supported.
(3.) ON behalf of the C.B.I., it has been urged that since case against the petitioners has serious ramification on the reputation of a premier educational institution, the necessity of detaining the petitioners till the statement of the students who have made statements against them throwing light on their complicity cannot be dismissed. The State in the present case is dealing with an influential academician who even during the time when the investigation of the case was conducted was able to get himself confirmed as the Controller of Examinations and would, therefore, be able to influence the students into resiling from the statements made by them during the course of investigation. It was also submitted that the influence of Dr. Sodhi Ram is further highlighted by the fact that by appearing before the Senate he has been able to get rejected the application by the Independent Agency for sanction of his prosecution. In these circumstances, since the trial has already commenced, the interest of justice required that the petitioners' applications for bail should be rejected till the time the statements of the students who have dared to make a clean breast of their guilt are recorded. Regarding the last submission, which has been put forth as a basis for grant of bail, it is submitted that this Court while entertaining an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. would refrain from going into the question of whether the charge in the present case has been properly framed or not, especially when Criminal Revision Nos. 1210 and 1293 of 2000 have already been filed by Dr. Sodhi Ram and Dhan Singh respectively to challenge this order of the trial Court.;