IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 1068 and 1113 of 2010. Decided on November 9, 2010. Harish Chander …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Sh. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner is involved in a scam of bogus examinations of Class 8th, 10+1 and 10+2. As per police report, there are few Tuition Centres, which, behind the facade of providing tuitions, arrange for bogus examination of private candidates, for the aforesaid classes and on the basis of those bogus examinations, candidates are declared pass. Money is charged for arranging bogus examination and procuring certificates of passing those examinations from H.P. Board of School Education. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. Role, attributed to the present petitioner is that he was in league with the persons, running the Tuition Centres. He was employed as a Postman for the villages, where covers containing Certificates/ Marks Sheets were to be delivered, to some of the candidates, who had arrangement for bogus examination, with Tuition Centres. Petitioner, allegedly delivered the covers containing certificates and marks sheets, not to addressee candidates, but to the Tuition Centre owners, who, in turn, delivered those certificates/ marks sheets to the candidates, after receiving hefty amounts of `10,000/- to `15,000/-. Evidence, collected by the police, suggests that covers were delivered, not to the individual candidates, but to the owner of the Centres, whose signatures are there on the scroll, on which signatures of the addressee are required to be obtained. Such scrolls have been seized from the post offices concerned by the police. 3. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the police report and record. 5. Looking to the gravity of the crime, and the role played by the petitioner, who was supposed to be the trustee of the covers containing certificates/marks sheets for - 3 - the candidates, I do not think this to be a fit case for exercising the discretion, in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail, in favour of the petitioner. So, both the applications are rejected. November 9, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.