2017 (4) TMI 1410 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail granted - no reason given for granting Bail - Bihar Toppers Scam - investigation was conducted which revealed fraudulent practices prevailing in Bihar Intermediate Examination involving students and management of the said Vishnu Rai College resulting in the arrest of the respondent herein - Held that - A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the Courts. The allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of the case dairy. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the credibility of the education system of State of Bihar. It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. It is not advisable to release the accused/ respondent on bail at this stage - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Grant of conditional bail by the High Court in a criminal case involving the Bihar Toppers Scam.

Analysis:
The High Court granted conditional bail to the respondent, the Principal of Vishnu Rai College, in connection with the Bihar Toppers Scam. The State of Bihar appealed against this decision, arguing that the gravity of the offense, the respondent's alleged involvement as the kingpin, and the evidence presented warranted denial of bail. The State contended that the respondent's role in the scam, involving fraudulent practices in the Bihar Intermediate Examination, was significant. The State highlighted the recovery of incriminating evidence during the investigation, such as documents, cash, answer sheets, and illegal items, establishing a prima facie case against the respondent.

The respondent's counsel argued that there was no evidence of direct monetary exchange and questioned the admissibility of statements from co-accused. The respondent's counsel relied on legal precedents emphasizing judicial restraint in interfering with bail orders unless exceptional circumstances exist. The respondent's counsel also pointed out the need to consider the amount of potential incarceration faced by the accused when deciding on bail.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's bail order lacked reasoning and seemed to focus primarily on the respondent's time spent in custody. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations against the respondent, including tampering with answer sheets and compromising the education system's integrity. The Court noted that the respondent's alleged actions could undermine the credibility of Bihar's education system. Additionally, the Court differentiated the respondent's case from others granted bail in the same matter, emphasizing the unique role attributed to the respondent as the kingpin of the scam.

The Court highlighted the absence of a fixed formula for granting bail and stressed the need to balance the state's interest in preventing crime with an individual's right to liberty. The Court distinguished the present case from previous judgments cited by the respondent's counsel based on the severity of the charges and the potential impact on society. The Court also considered the ongoing investigation and the complexity of the case involving multiple accused and a detailed modus operandi. Ultimately, the Court concluded that, given the gravity of the offense, the potential harm caused by socio-economic crimes, and the need for further investigation, it was not advisable to release the respondent on bail at that stage. Consequently, the High Court's order granting bail was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.