Holding

Bail was denied and the High Court's order granting conditional bail was set aside due to the seriousness of the offences and the need for the accused's custody.

Summary

The State of Bihar appealed against the Patna High Court's order granting conditional bail to Amit Kumar, the principal of Vishnu Rai College, who was alleged to be the king‑pin of the "Bihar Toppers Scam" involving tampering of answer sheets, illegal firearms, and large sums of cash and property. The High Court had released the accused on the basis of his prolonged pre‑trial custody without providing reasons. The Supreme Court examined whether bail could be granted in a serious socio‑economic offence that threatened the credibility of the state's education system and where a prima facie case, including seized answer sheets, rubber stamps and cash, was established. It held that the gravity of the offences, the need for the accused's presence for further investigation, and the public interest outweighed the argument of prolonged detention. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's bail order, refusing bail and allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting bail in a serious socio‑economic offence involving exam fraud and corruption.
Whether the High Court erred by not considering the gravity of the offences and the prima facie evidence.
Whether the accused's continued custody is necessary for further investigation and filing of additional charge sheets.
The application of Section 439 of the CrPC and Article 21 of the Constitution in bail decisions for economic offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439
Constitution of Indias. Article 21
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 188, s. 201, s. 212, s. 409, s. 420, s. 465, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(2)8, s. 13(l)(c), s. 13(l)(d), s. 81, s. 97

Subjects

bailsocio‑economic offenceexam fraudcorruptionSection 439 CrPCArticle 21economic offencesinvestigationconditional baileducation scam

Judgment

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 503

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. A
v.
AMIT KUMAR @ BACHCHA RAl
(Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2017)
APRIL 20, 20 l 7 B

(N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.J
Bail - Grant of - Challenge to - Bihar Toppers Scam - In
Intermediate examination conducted by Bihar Intermediate
Education Council, the students of some colleges were succes.~ful C
in occupying first ten places in merit list - This was followed by
scathing reports in electronic media about their poor intellectual
capacity - Subsequently, wrilten complaint was lodged by the
Director of Secondary Education - Consequently, FIR was regisiered
uls.420, 465, 468, 471, I 20B of Penal Code - Pursuant thereto,
investigation was conducted, which led to arresr of respondent along D
with other accused persons - However, High Court granted
conditional bail to respondent - On appeal, held: Respondent-
accused is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and
is alleged to be the kingpin/ring leader - During investigation,
various documents relating to property, cash and in addition to this, E
large number of answer sheets, letter heads, rubber stamps of
several authorities, admit cards, illegal.fire arm etc. were recovered,
which establishes a prima facie case against the respondent -
Offences alleged. if proved, may jeopardize the credibility of
education system of Bihar - Further, investigating agency is going
to file additional charge sheet - Therefore, respondents presence F
in custody is necessary for further investigation - Not advisable to
release respondent on bail at this stage - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 420, 465, 468,
471,120B - Constitution of India - Art.21.
Allowing the appeal, the Court G
HELD: 1. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses
that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting
bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on
the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time.
H
503
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A When the seriousness of the offence is such mere fact that he
was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the
Courts. There was a casual approach while granting bail in a case
which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the
integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar. [Para
9][508-B-D]
B
2. The accused is charged with economic offences of huge
magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ring leader. Further it
is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved in tampering
with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with the
examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination 2(116 and
c thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and other students
of Vishnu Rai College, in the said examination. During the
investigation when a search team raided his place various
documents relating to property and land to the tune of I<s. 2.57
Cr. were recovered besides Rs.20 lakhs in cash. In addition to
D this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of various
students, letter heads and rubber stamps of several authorities,
admit cards, illegal fire arm etc. were found which establishes a
prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations against
the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected
from the excerpts of the case dairy. The offences alleged, if proved,
E may jeopardize the credibility of the education system of State of
Bihar. [Para 10][508-D-GJ
3. There is no straight jacket formula for consideration of
grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The Government's interest in
F preventing crime hy arrestees is both legitimate and compelling.
So also is the cherished right of personal liberty envisaged under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, which is the bail provision, places responsibility
upon the courts to uphold procedural fairness before a person's
G liberty is abridged. Although 'bail is the rule and jail is an
exception' is well established in our jurisprudence, competing
forces present in facts and circumstances of each case have to be
measured before enlarging a person on bail. [Para 12)[51J9-B-D)
4. It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute
a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in
H
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. v. AMIT KUMAR @ 505
BACHCHA RAI

the matter of bail. Usually socio-economic offence has deep rooted A
conspiracies affecting the moral fiber of the society and causing
irreparable harm and needs to be considered seriously. [Para
14][5'10-B-C]
5. Further, the investigating agency is going to file
additional charge sheet. Therefore, the respondent's presence B
in the custody may be necessary for further investigation.
Furthermore, the order of the High Court cannot be approved,
in directing the concerned investigating authority to file the
charge sheet within a month, as the case involves almost 32
accused and a complex modus operandi. Considering the gravity
of the offence and several other crucial factors it is not advisable C
to release the accused/ respondent on bail at this stage. [Paras
15, 16J1510-C-E]
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 : [2011) 13
SCR 309 - distinguished.
Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466; YS. D
Jaga11 Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439 - relied
on.
Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India
(1986) 4 SCC 767 : [1987) l SCR 295; Masroor v.
State of U.P. (2009) 14 SCC 286 : [2009) 6 SCR 1030 E
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1987] 1 SCR 295 referred to Para 7
[2009) 6 SCR 1030 referred to Para 7
F
[2011] 13 SCR 309 distinguished Para 7
(2013) 1 sec 466 relied on Para 14
(2013) 7 SCC 439 relied on Para 14
CRIMIN AL APPELLATE JU RISDlCTION: Criminal Appeal No.
767of2017. G
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53391of'.2016.
Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., E. C. Vidya Sagar, Manish Kumar,
Advs. for the Appellants.
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

·A U. R. Lal it, Sr. Adv., Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Mehual Sharma,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J. I. Leave granted.
B 2. This criminal appeal is filed by State of Bihar against the final
judgment and order dated 14.02.2017 passed in Criminal Misce:Ianeous
No. 53391 of 2016, by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein
the High Court has passed following order:
"Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case,
c especially the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner,
let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) with two local sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction oflearned Special Judge,
vigilance, I", Patna/successor court in connection with Special
case No. 32 of2016 arising out of Patna Kotwali Police Station
D Case No. 270 of 2016 after framing of the charge in the case
which must be framed within a month, failing which the petitioner
would be released on bail on furnishing bail bond with condition
that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the trial of the case
and shall not indulge in any educational activity till the conclusion
E of the trial or any criminal activities. On report of subsequent
criminal activity ofthe petitioner, the court below shall be at libe11y
to cancel his bail bond in this case also".
3. Aggrieved by the above order of the High Court, granting
condit.ional bail to the respondent, State ofBihar is in appeal before us.
F 4. Brief factual matrix in the present matter is that the students of
one Vishnu Rai College, Kiratpur Raja Ram Bhagwanpm~ Vaishali, were
successful in occupying first ten places in the merit list of Intermediate
Examination conducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council.
Subsequently there was a report in the electronic media about the poor
. G intellectual capacity of those who have topped the Intermediate
Examination in the State of Bihar. In light of scathing media reports,
students whose names were part of the merit list were calleri for an
interview before the Bihar Schools Complex Committee. Subsequently
a written complaint was lodged by the Director of Secondary Education.
Consequently an FIR bearing P.S. Case No. 270/2016 dated 06.06.2016
H
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. v. AMIT KUMAR@ 507
BACHCHA RAI [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

was registered before the Kotwali Police Station Patna under Section A
420, 465, 468, 471, 1208 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter,
investigation was conducted which revealed fraudulent practices
prevailing in Bihar Intermediate Examination involving students and
management of the said Vishnu Rai College resulting in the arrest of the
respondent herein.
B
5. Assailing the impugned order of the High Court, which granted
conditional bail to the respondent, learned senior counsel Mr. Siddharth
Luthra appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar contended that, the
High Cowt erred in not taking into consideration the gravity of the offence.
He further contended that the respondent herein, Principal of Vishnu
Rai College, is the king pin of what is publically known as 'BiharToppers c
Scam' andthereby countered the argument of parity. Relying on the
excerpts of the case diary and seizure memo, which were not considered
by the High Court, he pointed out that a prima facie case is made out
against the respondent and consequently prayed for of setting aside the
impugned order which granted conditional bail for the respondent. D
6. Per contra learned senior counsel Mr. U.R. Lalit appearing
for the respondent-accused has contended that as there is no evidence
of money being exchanged by the accused, there is no possibility of
conviction in this case. Fu1ther learned senior counsel for respondent
has vehemently argued that, except for the evidence of the co-accused, E
there is no evidence to establish that there was exchange of money
between the respondent and other members involved in the conspiracy.
Furthermore he contended that the statements of co-accused cannot be
taken into account as the same is inadmissible in the eyes of law. Moreover
· he pointed out that the seizure of materials like rubber stamps etc, which
were found in a sister premises, cannot be relied upon. F
7. Learned senior counsel for respondent has placed reliance on
Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India'. wherea
Constitution Bench of this Court has observed that this Court should
generally desist from intervening in matters of grant or refusal of regular
bail /anticipatory bail by the High Court.Further he relied on the case of G
Masroor v. State of U.P. 2 , in which it was observed that this Court
should not ordinarily interfere with the order of the 1-1 igh Court, granting
or refusing bail, unless there is an exceptional circumstance. Lastiy he
1
(1986)4 sec 767
'<2009J 14 sec 286
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 7] 4 S.C.R.

A placed reliance on the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBP. wherein this
Court had iterated that the amount of incarceration the accused may
have to undergo, if he is ultimately punished, would be a relevant
consideration while granting the bail.
8. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the
B documents available on record.
9. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High
Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical
way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is
already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence
c is such mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be
the concern of the Courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual
approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining
the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of
Bihar.

D I0. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with
economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/
ring leader. Further it is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved
in tampering with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering
with the examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination 2016
and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and other students of
E Vishnu Rai College, in the said examination. During the investigation
when a search team raided his place various documents relating to
property and land to the tune of Rs. 2.57 Cr. were recovered besides
Rs.20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large number of written
answer sheets of various students, letter heads and rubber Sti!mps of
F several authorities, admit cards, illegal fire arm etc. were found which
establishes a prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations
against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected
from the excerpts of the case dairy. We are also conscious of the fact
that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the credibility of the
education system of State of Bihar.
G
11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
claimed parity with twenty eight (28) other accused persons in the same
case who have already been granted bail. We find that though some of
accused are released on bail most of them are teachers who performed
'(2012J 1 sec 40
H
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. v. AMIT KUMAR@ 509
BACHCHA RA! [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

the invigilation duty and members of the Managing Committee against A
whom the charges are not so serious. It is not appropriate to compare
the case of the accused-respondent, with those who were on bail, as the
respondent is alleged to be the king-pin of the entire crime.
12. Although there is no quarrel with respect to the legal
propositions canvassed by the learned counsels, it should be noted that B
there is no straight jacket formula for consideration of grant of bail to an
accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees is both
legitimate and compelling. So also is the cherished right of personal liberty
envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439 ofTheCode
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the bail provision, places c
responsibility upon the courts to uphold procedural fairness before a
person's liberty is abridged. Although 'bail is the rule and jail is an
exception· is well established in our jurisprudence, we have to measure
competing forces present in facts and circumstances of each case befo're
enlarging a person on bail. D
13. We are of the considered opinion that the case
of Sai?jay Chandra (supra), as relied upon by learned counsel for
respondent is distin1:;-1ishable from the case at hand as the charges in
that case carried a maximum punishment for a term which may extend
to seven years. In the present case, charge sheet has been submitted, E
inter alia, for the offences under section 409 4, 465, 467 5, 468, 471, 188,
201, 2 12 and 120 B oflndian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 81', 97, 13
(l)(c)/(d) read with 13(2)8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 19889 •
There.fore the case of Sa11jay Chandra (supra) provides no assistance
'Which carries punishment of imprisonment for lifo, or imprisonment of dthcr
description for a term which may extend up to ten years and shall also be liable for a F
line.
'Which carries punishment of imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either
descriplit>n which may extend up to a term often years and shall also be liable to a fine.
'' Whid1 carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of three years and may
extend up to seven years with tine.
7
Whil:h carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of three years and may
extend up to seven years with fine. G
'Which carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of four years and may
extend up to ten years with fine.
' It is to be noted that Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was amended by 'The
Lokpal and Lokayutas Act, 2013 ·,/\ct I of 2014 (w.e.f 16.0l.2014). This amendment
has increased the minimum prescribed punishment under Section 8, 9. 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. 1-1
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 4 S.C.R.

A for the respondent herein.
14. We are also conscious that if any undeserving candidates are
allowed to top exams by corrupt means, not only will the society be
deprived of deserving candidates, but it will be unfair for those students
who have honestly worked hard for one whole year and are ultimately
B disentitled to a good rank by fraudulent practices prevalent in those
examinations. It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute
a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. 10 Usually socio-economic offence has deep rooted
conspiracies affecting the moral fiber of the society and causing
irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously.
c
15. Further we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating
agency is going to file additional charge sheet. Therefore, the respondent's
presence in the custody may be necessary for further investigation.
Furthermore we ca·rnot approve the order of the High Court, in directing
the concerned investigating authority to file the charge sheet within a
D month, as the case involves almost 32 accused and a complex modus
VjJf!/'011(/i.

16. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the gravity
of the offence and several other crucial factors which are discussed in
detail in preceding paragraphs, we ar•e of the opinion that it is not advisable
E to release the accused/ respondent on bail at this stage. Accordingly
without expressing any opinion on final merits of the case, we set aside
the order of the High Court. The appeal stands allowed.

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed

10
1\'in1magadda Prasadv. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466; rs. Jagan ,\fohan Red,~vv. CBI,
(2013)7SCC439.