Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 988 (MP)

State Of M. P. v. Vineet Kumar Choudhary

2014-08-08

A.M.KHANWILKAR, K.K.TRIVEDI

body2014
ORDER : Shri P. K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the applicant-State. Shri Shashank Shekhar, Advocate for the respondent. Heard, counsel for the parties. 2. This application is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent by this Court on 24-3-2014 in connection with Crime No. 16/2013 registered at Police Station S.T.F. Bhopal for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 65, 66 of the I.T. Act and section 3(d) 1, 2 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Manyataprapta Pariksha Adhiniyam 1937, commonly known as VYAPAM scam cases. 3. The role ascribed to the respondent in the said crime is that of a beneficiary. This Court was indulgent in granting anticipatory bail with a hope that the respondent would extend full co-operation in the investigation of the case. When the respondent completed the formalities of bail on 3-4-2014, he was served with a notice (Annexure A/2 at Page 12 of the Paper Book) by the Investigating Officer and was called upon to appear in the Office of the Investigating Officer on 5-4-2014 at 12 noon for recording of his statement. The respondent acknowledged receipt of the said notice, as can be seen from the noting found in the document. The respondent did not appear before the Investigating Officer on the scheduled date and time, nor thereafter. As a result, the Investigating Officer had no option, but to issue fresh notice to the respondent on 18-4-2014 to make himself available in the Office of the Investigating Officer on 23-4-2014 at 11 a.m. Even, this notice has been duly served on the respondent, as can be seen from the noting found on the document (Annexure A/3 at Page 13 of the Paper Book). In spite of that notice, the respondent has not appeared before the Investigating Officer so far. This is the assertion made in the application on affidavit by the prosecution, in paragraph 5 of the application. Besides this ground, it is also stated that during investigation, it has come to the notice of the Investigating Officer that the OMR sheet pertaining to the respondent has been filled with two different inks. Without the co-operation of the respondent on that aspect, the investigation cannot be taken forward. 4. Besides this ground, it is also stated that during investigation, it has come to the notice of the Investigating Officer that the OMR sheet pertaining to the respondent has been filled with two different inks. Without the co-operation of the respondent on that aspect, the investigation cannot be taken forward. 4. In response to this application, the respondent on affidavit, has denied the correctness of the fact stated in paragraph 5 of the application. According to the respondent, the said fact is false as the respondent did not put his signature on any document, much less the documents appended as Annexures A/2 and A/3. The respondent instead called upon the State to produce the original documents bearing his signature. 5. To re-assure ourselves, we have perused the documents dated 3-4-2014 and 18-4-2014 produced by the counsel for the State. Both these documents bear the signature of the respondent with endorsement "Received". The admitted signature of the respondent which appears in the reply affidavit filed before this Court to oppose the application is, in our opinion, similar to the signature appearing in the original documents produced before us. After comparing the signature on the original documents with admitted signature of the respondent appearing in the reply affidavit, we have no manner of doubt that the respondent is taking a plea which is false to his knowledge. Indeed, this is our prima facie opinion and this aspect will have to be investigated further in the prosecution to be launched against the respondent for committing perjury by making statement on affidavit which is false to his knowledge. That prosecution be initiated by the Registrar of this Court as per the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. For the time being, suffice it to observe that the respondent has failed to co-operate in the investigation. Not only that, he has the audacity to take a plea on affidavit which is false to his knowledge. 7. Taking any view of the matter, the respondent deserves no more indulgence and, therefore, we recall the anticipatory bail order dated 24-3-2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2724/2014 and permit the Investigating Officer to proceed against the respondent forthwith in accordance with law and including to arrest him in connection with Crime No. 16/2013, after following due process. 8. 7. Taking any view of the matter, the respondent deserves no more indulgence and, therefore, we recall the anticipatory bail order dated 24-3-2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2724/2014 and permit the Investigating Officer to proceed against the respondent forthwith in accordance with law and including to arrest him in connection with Crime No. 16/2013, after following due process. 8. The original documents, photocopies whereof are appended as Annexures A/2 and A/3, are returned to the Counsel for the State, to be handed over to the Investigating Officer for placing it in the records. 9. The Registrar of this Court shall take steps to initiate prosecution against the respondent for taking plea on affidavit which is found to be false to his knowledge. This, of course, must be treated as our prima facie opinion and that offence will have to be now investigated after registration of the FIR by the Registrar. 10. Application disposed of, accordingly. C.C. as per rules.