Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1616 (MP)

Sanjeev Saxena v. State of M. P.

2014-12-08

A.M.KHANWILKAR, SANJAY YADAV

body2014
ORDER 1. At the outset, it is pointed out by the counsel for the State that the applicant has reportedly indulged in influencing the further investigation. For that, the respondents intend to take out a formal application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant by this Court in other three cases so that the application for cancellation of bail and the present application can proceed together as it would involve overlapping issues. We are inclined to accede to this request. 2. After this order is dictated, counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the stand now taken by the prosecution is an afterthought. He prays that this application be heard today on merits. 3. In view of this submission, the only option available before us is to proceed with the hearing of this application and perusing the information divulged to us in sealed cover by the Public Prosecutor. Since that being confidential matter, it cannot be divulged to the applicant. On the other hand, if the prosecution takes out formal application for cancellation of bail, the applicant will get opportunity to respond to the relevant material to be produced and referred to by the prosecution. The applicant, however, is willing to take the risk of the possibility of Court relying on the confidential material produced for perusal of the Court. Accordingly, we proceed to hear the present application forthwith because of the insistence of the applicant. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that from the response filed before the trial Court in reply to the bail application filed by the applicant coupled with the fact that by now four charge-sheets have been filed in connection with Crime No.15/2013 registered with STF Police Station, Bhopal in connection with offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, under sections 65 and 66 of IT Act and under sections 3(d), 1, 2/4 of M.P. Manayata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937 commonly known as VYAPAM Examination Scam Cases. It is but appropriate that the applicant be released on bail in connection with this crime. 5. No doubt, the first charge-sheet in connection with Crime No.15/2013 was filed on 20.3.2014 which was followed by further charge-sheet on 16.9.2014 and 17.9.2014 respectively. But, these charge-sheets were filed against other co-accused and not against the applicant. It is but appropriate that the applicant be released on bail in connection with this crime. 5. No doubt, the first charge-sheet in connection with Crime No.15/2013 was filed on 20.3.2014 which was followed by further charge-sheet on 16.9.2014 and 17.9.2014 respectively. But, these charge-sheets were filed against other co-accused and not against the applicant. The applicant was arrested in this case on 28.8.2014 and indisputably the charge-sheet has already been filed against him on 11.11.2014. 6. That, according to the applicant, presupposes that the investigation qua the applicant in connection with Crime No.15/2013 has been completed in all respect and as the beneficiaries have already been released on bail and the role of the applicant was only that of middleman, the applicant be granted bail, as has been granted to other middleman by this Court in similar cases. He further submits that the application for bail was filed in connection with Crime No.15/2013 pursuant to the liberty granted to the applicant by the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.10.2014 in SLP (Criminal) No.7837/2014. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, even though we may find justification in the argument of the applicant that the charge-sheet having been filed against the applicant on 11.11.2014 and the beneficiaries have already been granted bail, the Court must take a lenient view even against the applicant, who has allegedly acted only as a middleman. However, having considered the note submitted in the sealed cover for our perusal, the said argument deserves to be rejected. For, it is noticed that during further investigation in this case as well as other cases by the STF, it has been found that the role of the applicant was not limited to that of a middleman. He is not only involved in four cases but many more likely to be registered against him and the role played by the applicant, it has now come to light is that of a racketeer. There are other cases which have been registered but as the investigation and inquiry in those cases is in progress, formal arrest of the applicant has not been effected in those cases. Besides, it is seen from the note that the applicant, although in jail, made attempt to influence the witnesses and, in particular, one of the co-accused so as to mislead and misdirect the investigation. That position has now been verified by the Investigating Agency. Besides, it is seen from the note that the applicant, although in jail, made attempt to influence the witnesses and, in particular, one of the co-accused so as to mislead and misdirect the investigation. That position has now been verified by the Investigating Agency. We wonder why the Investigating Officer did not think it appropriate to apply for cancellation of bail already granted to the applicant in other crimes and more particularly, why these facts were not brought to the notice of the trial Court which considered the bail application of the applicant in Crime No.15/2013. The response of the respondent, however, was that after filing of the written objection in the said bail application, verification process was completed and the factual position mentioned in the note handed over to the Court in a sealed cover for perusal of the Court was verified thereafter. 8. Be that as it may, the Investigating Officer is free to apply for cancellation of bail already granted by this Court to the applicant in connection with Crime No.16/2013, 17/2013 and 18/2013. 9. Learned counsel for the State informs that already one application for cancellation of bail has been filed against the applicant in Crime No.18/2013 being MCrC No.16484/2014 and this additional information will also be pressed into service in the said application. 10. It is for this reason, we were inclined to adjourn the hearing of this application so that on filing of a formal application for cancellation of bail, the applicant could have got opportunity to deal with the points urged by the prosecution. However, as the counsel for the applicant has insisted for hearing of this application, we have no option but to proceed with the hearing and record reasons as already mentioned hitherto. We do not wish to hasten the prayer for bail, in the fact situation of the case. 11. The note handed over to the Court in sealed cover be kept in a sealed envelope and made part of the record of this proceeding. The sealed envelope shall be kept with the custody of the Registrar General and be made available to the Court only when express order in this behalf is passed. 12. Application is rejected with liberty to renew the request for grant of bail in Crime No.15/2013, after the decision on the application for cancellation of bail. The sealed envelope shall be kept with the custody of the Registrar General and be made available to the Court only when express order in this behalf is passed. 12. Application is rejected with liberty to renew the request for grant of bail in Crime No.15/2013, after the decision on the application for cancellation of bail. Praveen Dubey for applicant; P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.