IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11927 of 2008 KANTESH KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 10.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for bail in a case under Sections 120-B, 465, 407, 468, 471, 380, 419, 420,411 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (i) ( c) (d ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The F.I.R. in the present matter is stated to have been lodged on the basis of information given by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau Team which had been looking into the matter of issuance of forged certificates of Magadh University. The authorities of the University, it is stated, had been informed by the Vigilance officials that if a raid is carried out immediately at Mehta and Rama Printing Presses, forged certificates, tabulation charts and fake documents in that regard could be obtained. Further allegation was that the petitioner being the Superintendent of Press, Magadh University and also the brother of the owner of Rama Printing Press in conspiracy with beneficiaries were committing theft of a large number of special papers for printing certificates of the University and after printing University degrees the same were being sold. Thereafter, a raid was conducted in both the Printing Presses and it is alleged that huge amount of papers containing the certificates of Magadh University as also Tabulation charts and other secret papers were recovered from Rama Printing Press and a few certificates were also recovered from Mehta Printing Press. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present matter at the instance of the Registrar, Magadh University, who has got the case lodged in order to save his own skin. It is submitted that the petitioner was living separately from his brother who was the proprietor of Rama Printing Press, since long time after Partition Suit No.5 of 1982 was filed between them. It is urged that his brother is the absolute owner of the Press and the petitioner has no concern with the running of the Press. It is alleged by learned counsel that as a matter of fact, the said brother, who is the owner of the Press, had been arrested and subsequently released by the Police whereas the authorities are after him without any iota of evidence to connect him with the matter except for the fact that he was the Superintendent of Press in the University. Learned counsel also refers to various paragraphs of the case diary to show that nothing concrete has come during the course of investigation to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime except for the fact that several persons who are inimical to him have made bland statement regarding his being the main person responsible in the printing of fake degrees etc. Such statements, without any further material, according to the learned counsel, cannot be considered as sufficient to implicate him in a case as a conspirator, there being no recovery from his conscious possession, at any stage. It is stated that investigation was closed by the submission of the final charge-sheet on 9.2.2008. Regarding the charge of excess sheets of - 3 - blank special papers having been recovered, learned counsel contends that the said degree papers are handmade and supplied by M/s Aurobindo Hand-made Papers, Pondicherry and the prevalent practice is that such papers are kept in bundles each of which contains a few extra sheets so as to rule out the possibility of shortage of sheets and in the said circumstances, the recovery of 388 sheets as excess, being one percent of the total supplies of 38,000 sheets made, cannot be considered as incriminating at all. It is stated that said practice continues in the University till today and in every bundle there is supply of a few excess sheets. Learned counsel also points out that special papers which have been found in the Printing Presses are not exclusive or controlled papers but are available in the open market and can be obtained by any person from the manufacturers or suppliers of the same. It is also argued that there is no report regarding theft of any papers from stores of University made at any time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has surrendered in Court below and is in custody since 17.12.2007 i.e. for a period of nearly seven months now and thus, he ought to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, on the other hand, states that as per the F.I.R. itself, the petitioner has been indulging in manufacture of fake degrees, etc., belonging to Magadh University and that he is in connivance with the two Printing Presses, i.e., Rama Printing Press and Mehta Printing Press run by his brother which used to print such fake degrees and after pilfering the special papers kept in - 4 - the University Press store. Learned counsel emphasizes that the recovery of substantial number of blank certificates and degrees of various examinations from Rama Printing Press clearly points to the petitioner being responsible for the same. It is argued that the mere fact of a Partition Suit between the petitioner and his brother many years back cannot absolve the petitioner from the matter. So far as his role in the conspiracy is concerned, learned counsel also relies upon the statements made in various paragraphs of the case diary by various officials of the University in which they have alleged that it is the petitioner, who had managed the entire racket of printing of fake degrees of the University. It is also stated by the learned counsel that several of the materials found in the press store were not recorded in the University store register and thus, they have unauthorizedly been kept in the Press store. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that the final charge- sheet has already been submitted on 9.2.2008 itself and the petitioner has remained in Jail for nearly seven months now, it is directed that the petitioner namely, Kantesh Kumar Sinha, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Special Case No. 46 of 2007 arising out of Gaya Civil Line P.S. Case No. 114 of 2007 to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna. P.K. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)