Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040010182023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.M.Appln./3/2023 Central Bureau of Investigation CBI, duly represented by the Shri Mohammed Abid Ali, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Guwahati, Assam VERSUS Taket Jerang S/o Late Tasing Jerang, permanent resident of Mori village, PO. Pessing, PS. Rumgong, District Siang. Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Quarter No. 284/T II, E Sector, Naharlagun. PO and PS Naharlagun. Papum Pare District. Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Advocate for the Respondent : Tsering Gyatso Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 06.03.2025 Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned Standing Counsel, CBI for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application is filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for cancellation of bail order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Bail Appln. Case No.13/2023 in respect of the accused/respondent, Taket Jerang, in connection with CBI P.S. Case No. RC01720230001, under Section- 120B/406/409/420 of IPC read with Section 7/8 & 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. 3. Mr. Kato, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, representing the petitioner, has submitted that on 22.02.2023, this Court granted default bail to the accused/respondent in Bail Appln. Case No. 13/2023, solely considering the fact that the investigating officer [ in short ‘I.O’] could not file the charge sheet within the stipulated period. He further submitted that the accused/respondent is involved in a very heinous offence of selling, purchasing, and leaking question papers, which not only jeopardized the future of the aspirants but also reversed the progress of the entire State of Arunachal Pradesh. The very purpose of conducting the competitive examination for Group A & B of Civil & Allied Services by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission is to select the most deserving and meritorious candidates. However, the offence committed by the accused/respondent has deprived meritorious candidates of their rightful place, allowing some individuals to be selected through illegal means. Moreover, Page No.# 3/6 there is a high probability that the accused/respondent may alert the other accused, influence the witnesses, and cause the evidence to disappear if allowed to remain on bail in the present case. The offence committed by the accused/respondent is part of a deep-rooted conspiracy that has caused significant loss and inconvenience to the general public, and thus it must be viewed seriously and considered a grave offence against the public at large. 4. He further submitted that the bail order dated 22.02.2023, granted to the accused/respondent, was a default bail, which was given solely because the I.O could not complete the investigation or file the charge sheet or final form of the case. The merit of the case was not considered while granting default bail, and according to the latest Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy [Criminal Appeal Case No. 37/2023, dated 16.01.2023], it has been held that if the investigation reveals that the accused has committed a serious offence and the charge sheet is filed, the bail granted under the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled. In this regard, he mainly emphasized on paragraph No. 12 of the said judgment, where it was observed that the Court has the power to cancel the bail and examine the merits of the case when the accused is released on default bail and was not released on merit earlier. Paragraph 12 of the said Judgment reads as follows: 12. As such, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. The submission on behalf of the respondent – original Accused No. 1 and the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order that once an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail cannot be cancelled on merits is accepted, in that case, it will be giving a premium to the lethargic and/or negligence, may be in a given case of deliberate attempt on the part of the investigating agency not to file the chargesheet within the prescribed time period. In a given case, even if the accused has committed a very serious offence, may be under the NDPS or even committed murder(s), still however, he manages Page No.# 4/6 through a convenient investigating officer and he manages not to file the chargesheet within the prescribed time limit mentioned under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and got released on default bail, it may lead to giving a premium to illegality and/or dishonesty. As observed hereinabove, such release of the accused on default bail is not on merits at all, and is on the eventuality occurring in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167. However, subsequently on curing the defects and filing the chargesheet, though a strong case is made out that an accused has committed the very serious offence and non-bailable crime, the Court cannot cancel the bail and commit the person into custody and not to consider the gravity of the offence committed by the accused, the Courts will be loathe for such an interpretation, as that would frustrate the justice. The Courts have the power to cancel the bail and to examine the merits of the case in a case where the accused is released on default bail and released not on merits earlier. Such an interpretation would be in furtherance to the administration of justice. 5. Mr. Kato, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the bail granted to the accused/respondent vide order dated 22.02.2023 in Bail Appln. Case No. 13/2023 may be cancelled, and the matter may be remanded back to the Court of the learned Trial Court for reconsideration of the bail application on merits. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that there cannot be any question of tampering with and influencing the witnesses at this stage, and the respondent is abiding by all the terms and conditions imposed on him by this Court. He further submitted that, in another case, registered as CBI P.S. Case No. RC01720230001, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail to the respondent on 31.07.2023, subject to certain terms and conditions. As per the conditions, the respondent is required to appear before the I.O. every Monday at 11:00 A.M., and the respondent has been complying with this direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as with the directions issued by this Court on 22.02.2023. Moreover, he submitted that the default bail was granted by this Court on 22.02.2023, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail on 31.07.2023. Thus, the respondent was in Page No.# 5/6 custody until his release, providing ample opportunity for the I.O. to interrogate him. No purpose would be served by re-arresting the respondent in connection with this case and remanding him to jail. Furthermore, one cannot be kept in custody for a long period merely as a form of punishment, as the guilt of the respondent has not yet been proven. 7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record, the order passed by this Court, the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and other annexures attached to the petition. It is a fact that on 22.02.2023, this Court passed an order for default bail, considering that the I.O could not furnish the charge sheet even after the lapse of the statutory period. It is also a fact that, at the time of passing the order, the merits of the case were not discussed, and bail was granted solely because the charge sheet was not filed within the statutory period, applying the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner (CBI), praying for the cancellation of the default bail granted on 22.02.2023, submitting that, even after the filing of the charge sheet, the default bail can be cancelled because the merits of the case were not considered at the time of granting the bail. 8. It is also a fact that the nature of the allegations against the respondent is very serious, involving the leakage of question papers, along with other allegations of economic offences, which should be considered as class apart. However, it cannot be denied that the default bail was granted after a considerable period of custody of the accused/respondent. Moreover, based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent and the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the bail order in the other case Page No.# 6/6 was passed on 31.07.2023, almost five months after the default bail was granted to the respondent. Thus, it cannot be denied that the I.O had ample opportunity to interrogate the respondent, even after his release on default bail. 9. At the same time, it is also clear that no allegations have been brought against the accused/respondent for attempting to tamper with or influence any witnesses. Nor there is any allegation that the accused/respondent has violated any bail conditions. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent has shown that the accused/respondent has complied with all the conditions imposed on him by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly the requirement to appear before the I.O. every Monday at 11:00 A.M. Additionally, there is no statement suggesting that the accused/respondent has tried to manipulate evidence or witnesses in the present case, despite the claim that there is a possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 10. In view of this, and after considering all aspects of the case, I do not find it justified to pass any order for the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused/respondent by this Court on 22.02.2023 in Bail Appln. Case No. 13/2023. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. However, the petitioner (CBI) is at liberty to approach the Court if there is any violation of the terms and conditions imposed on the accused/respondent or if there is any subsequent development in the investigation of the case. 11. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant