Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1494 (MP)

Deepak Shakya v. State of M. P.

2014-11-19

A.M.KHANWILKAR, ALOK ARADHE

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This is a second bail application filed under section 439 of CrPC by the applicants. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.266/2012 registered with S.T.F. Police Station Bhopal – commonly known as VYAPAM examination scam cases – for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 109 and 120 of IPC. and also under section 3(D) (2)/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937. 3. The role ascribed to the applicants is that of beneficiaries. The applicant No.1 allegedly took assistance of one Hemant Shakya, who arranged for Dipak Shakya to appear for him as impersonator during the examination. The applicant No.2, on the other hand, contacted Gyan Singh to help him during the Vyapam Examination to secure good marks. In other words, Hemant Shakya and Gyan Singh acted as middlemen to facilitate the application No.1 and applicant No.2 respectively in commission of unfair means during the subject examination. 4. As regards applicant No.2, it has come on record that Gyan Singh, who acted as middleman, is reportedly dead. The Investigating Officer made inquiries to reassure himself that the dead person was the same person with whom the applicant No.2 had interacted in commission of the alleged crime. He has placed his satisfaction in that behalf on record. Since no further clue is possible after the death of Gyan Singh coupled with the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant No.2 on 11.9.2014, which presupposes that the investigation qua him was complete unless further investigation was required against him after new revelations. However, since the arrest of Gyan Singh is not possible being a dead person, the applicant need not be kept in jail any further especially when charge sheet has already been filed on 14.9.2014. There is no certainty of early conclusion of the trial as large number of students are named as accused and witnesses in the Vyapam Examination Scam Cases. 5. The applicant No.2, through counsel undertakes to extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer for further investigation of the case, if and when required including against him. Further the applicant No.2 also undertakes that he would punctually appear before the trial Court during the trial to facilitate early disposal of the trial. 6. 5. The applicant No.2, through counsel undertakes to extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer for further investigation of the case, if and when required including against him. Further the applicant No.2 also undertakes that he would punctually appear before the trial Court during the trial to facilitate early disposal of the trial. 6. Taking overall view of the matter and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to applicant No.2 on the conditions which will be spelt out hereinafter. 7. Reverting back to applicant No.1, he was assisted by one Hemant Shakya. Initially the Investigating Officer was given to understand that Hemant Shakya, who is in Gwalior jail in connection with some other offence is the same Hemant Shakya with whom applicant No.1 had interacted. applicant No.1, however, after filing of charge sheet on 11.9.2014, when called upon to identify the said Hemant Shakya lodged in Gwalior jail, stated that the said person was not the same with whom he had interacted. 8. In other words, Hemant Shakya lodged in Gwalior jail is not the same Hemant Shakya with whom the applicant No.1 had interacted. After this disclosure was made by the applicant No.1, the Investigating Officer has prepared posters of Hemant Shakya on the basis of the information furnished to him, inter alia, by the applicant No.1. The Investigating Officer has not been able to obtain any further clues regarding the whereabouts of Hemant Shakya, who acted as middleman for applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period merely because of failure of the Investigating Officer in not tracing the real middleman Hemant Shakya. The role ascribed to applicant No.1, as aforesaid, is only that of beneficiary. The applicant No.1 has throughout cooperated during investigation as can be discerned from the record and even the subsequent conduct referred to above. 9. Taking overall view of the matter, as the applicant No.1 through counsel undertakes that if and when required in future he will make himself available before the Investigating Officer in connection with the further investigation of the crime including against the applicant and that he shall punctually appear before the trial Court during the trail to ensure speedy disposal of the trial, in the interest of justice, even applicant No.1 deserves to be granted bail on the conditions as may be specified hereinafter. 10. 10. Accordingly, this application is allowed and both the applicants are directed to be enlarged on bail on following strict conditions :- (1) The applicants shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with two solvent local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance during the trial in connection with Crime No.266/2012 in Police Station STF, Bhopal; (2) The applicants shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of CrPC meticulously; (3) Additionally, the applicant No.1 will report to the Police Station – Kalaras, Distt Morena (M.P.) and applicant No.2 will report to the Police Station – Indragarh, District Datiya (M.P.) once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon unless required to attend the office of the Investigating Officer at Bhopal on that day; and (4) The applicants will deposit their passport, if available, with the Investigating Agency, else file affidavit in this Court declaring that the applicants do not have any passport of any country. This compliance will be condition precedent for release on bail. Udyan Tiwari for applicants; P. K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General and Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.