The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of former principal Smt Parul Soloman accused in the RO/ARO paper leak case.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Smt Parul Soloman.
The bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Smt Parul Soloman under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case for offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3, 4, 9, 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge, Prayagraj, by order dated 8.10.2024.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motive.
It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged on 2.3.2024 and name of the applicant is surfaced on 15.9.2024 on the basis of a statement of a teacher of the school.
It is also submitted that applicant lodged two F.I.R.s against the persons of management of the school on 2.7.2024 under Sections 121, 324(4), 333, 74, 76, 351(2), 309(4) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.
Counsel for the applicant said that the applicant further lodged an F.I.R against the persons of management of the school on 11.7.2024 as case under Sections 191(1), 308(7), 78(2), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita at P.S Colonelganj, District Prayagraj. Due to this enmity, management of the school implicated her in the present case. Applicant was Principal of the Bishop Johnson School.
He further said that there is no pre-summoning evidence with regard to the dismantling or seal of any envelope of the question paper.
It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.
He also said that the co-accused Arpit Vineet Jaswant has been granted bail by the Court order dated 5.9.2024.
He has next argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024, having no criminal history nor there is any likelihood of fleeing from the course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.
Per contra, A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
“It is a well settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Keeping in mind, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail,” the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let applicant, Smt Parul Soloman be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000/- and after her release the applicant is directed to furnish two reliable sureties within one month, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.