LexTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus BIMAL KRISHNA KUNDU AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. BIMAL KRISHNA KUNDU AND ANR. OCTOBER 3, 1997 [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 438, 437(1)-Leakage of PSC examination question papers-Respondent/printers blacklisted- C However, leakage continued-Examinations cancelled-Investigation revealed respondents obtained printing work through dummy firms- Anticipatory bail granted by single judge-Held, there are different considerations for post arrest bail and pre arrest bail-Heinous crime- Grant of anticipatory bail before police interrogation would harm investigation. D First respondent and his son, the second respondent were owners of a printing pr~ss engaged by the Public Service Commission, Andhra Pradesh (PSC) for printing question papers for the examination conducted in 1993. There was leakage of question papers for which the respondent-printers were also found responsible. The Government blacklisted the respondents. However, E leakage of question papers continued even thereafter and examinations had to be cancelled in 1996 and 1997. Thereupon criminal cases were registered. Investigation revealed that the respondents managed to obtain the printing work of question papers in collusion with Secretary of PSC by having a dummy firm of printers in Bangalore headed by S, who was merely a name lender, F while actual printing was done at the press of the respondents in Calcutta. It was found that by personation as owners of another printing establishment, the respondents had obtained printing work of question papers for Intermediate examinations. The respondents approached the High Court for anticipatroy bail under G Section 438 Cr. P.C. The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondents mainly on the grounds that though the offences alleged were non-bailable, they were all offences triable by a Magistrate of First Class and furthermore, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It also held that the statement of A, who H is mainly responsible for the leakage of question papers does not indicate 412 • THE STATE OF A.P. v. B.K. KUNDU 413 any nexus between the respondents and persons who leaked the papers. A Aggrieved, the State Government filed an Appeal. Allowing the Appeal, the Court HELD: l.l. The Single Judge, after apprising himselfofthe nature and B seripusness of the criminal conspiracy should not have granted anticipatory bail to the respondents. This is not a fit case for exercising discretion under Section 438 to grant anticipatory bail to the respondents. If respondents are equipped with bail order before they are interrogated by the police it would greatly harm investigation and consequently, public interest. [417-C-D) C 2.1. The Single Judge has erroneously telescoped considerations contemplated in Section 437 Cr. PC into the amplitude of discr~tion envisaged in Section 438 Cr. PC. Section 438 Cr. PC applies to all non-bailable offences and not merely those offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, which classification is indicated in Section 437 (1) Cr. PC. (415-H; 416-A) D 2.2. Considerations governing the Court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. PC are materially different from those when an application for bail is moved after arrest or by a convicted person whose appeal is pending. [416-E-F) E State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT (1997) 7 651 and Pokar Ram v. St. of Rajasthan, AIR (1985) SC 969, relied on. 3. Applicability of Section 438 Cr. PC is not confined to offences triable exclusively by the Court of sessions, as has been assumed by the Single Judge F while exercising his discretion, but also to offences triable by a Magistrate of First Class. (416-8) 4.1. The Statement of A, who is a proof reader in the printing press of the respondents at Calcutta, as also the statement of her husband clearly make G out that S, who headed the dummy press at Bangalore, was working as a proof reader in the press of the respondents at Calcutta and the leaked question papers were actually printed in the press of the respondents. Besides. the confessional statement of another accused, R also reveals that the question papers leaked were printed in the press of the respondents and R was privy to the leakage. [416-H; 417-A-B) H 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 923- 924of1997. From the Judgmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.