IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.1227 of 2010 Date of decision : November 15, 2010 Pritam Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has been in custody since 8th October, 2010, in a case, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, vide FIR No.221 of 2010. Case pertains to examinations scam. 3. According to the police record, some private candidates, sponsored by some private schools, whose proprietors were in league with the employees of Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, applied for examination of 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 examinations, conducted by the said Board. Their forms were defective and full of deficiencies. Education Board’s employees, including the present petitioner, issued roll numbers to the private candidates Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… sponsored, as aforesaid, ignoring the deficiencies, but lateron issued communications, pointing out the deficiencies to complete the record. Such candidates did not appear for the examination, at the centres shown in the record. They were, however, declared pass. 4. Role attributed to the present petitioner is that he issued roll numbers, in respect of some private candidates of 10+2 examination, in the year 2009, to accommodate the candidates sponsored by Ashwani Dogra, proprietor of one of the private institutions, who was involved in the scam. 5. Petitioner has been in custody for the last more than one month. Presently he is in judicial custody. No further interrogation of the petitioner is required. His prayer for grant of bail is opposed, on the ground that he can influence or intimidate the witnesses, and can again join the scammers and several other colleagues of the petitioner appear to be involved in the scam and the conspiracy. 6. None of the aforesaid objections can be said to be a good ground for keeping the petitioner in detention, especially when he is no longer required for interrogation. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala. Order is subject to the conditions that the petitioner, (a) shall not try to win over, influence or intimidate the witnesses and (b) shall not enter the premises of the …3… Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, without prior permission of the Secretary of the said Board and the Secretary, while granting permission, shall fix the date and the time, when the petitioner may enter and remain in the Board’s office. Petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. November 15, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J