Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 240 (MP)

Arshay Aazam v. State of M. P.

2015-02-26

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.S.JHA

body2015
JUDGMENT: M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015 1. This anticipatory bail application is fled by the suspect in Crime No. 12/2013 registered at Police Station STF Bhopal for offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. read with sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and section 3(d), 1 and 2/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act 1937 - commonly known as VYAPAM Examination Scam cases. 2. The role ascribed to the applicant is one of having acted as Scorer in the examination conducted by VYAPAM to aid and assist another candidate appearing in the same examination. The involvement of the applicant, according to prosecution, has been traced on the basis of diary recovered from Jagdish Sagar, one of the racketeer and mastermind of the offences in question. The applicant in the application form submitted to VYAPAM had disclosed incorrect address as resident of Indore, whereas he is permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh. This is a strong circumstance showing mens rea in commission of offence and not a case of inadvertence. According to the prosecution, the applicant was recipient of amount from Racketeer and middleman to perform as Scorer in the said examination and, therefore, was a member of conspiracy and committed offence for consideration. 3. After the involvement of the applicant was known to the Investigating Officer, notices were issued to the applicant, however, as wrong address was furnished by him, the same could not be served on the applicant. The Investigating Officer after extensive inquiry, could ultimately reach to the correct address of the applicant, which is in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The process followed by the Investigating Officer was placed before us alongwith the relevant record by the counsel appearing for the State. The applicant having realized that now the Investigating Officer has identified the applicant and is about to proceed against him, has rushed to this Court by way of present application fled on 06.02.2015. The offence is committed in the year 2012 and has been registered as Crime No. 12/2013. The fact that the applicant has been avoiding arrest also becomes amply clear from the record produced before us - as the applicant could not be traced even at his correct address in Uttar Pradesh. 4. Notably, the applicant is already prosecuting M.B.B.S. in Kanpur University. The fact that the applicant has been avoiding arrest also becomes amply clear from the record produced before us - as the applicant could not be traced even at his correct address in Uttar Pradesh. 4. Notably, the applicant is already prosecuting M.B.B.S. in Kanpur University. In that case, there was no reason for him to appear in the entrance examination conducted by VYAPAM at Indore. This circumstance speaks about the involvement of the applicant. According to the applicant, he was selected in Kanpur (U.P.) University to M.B.B.S. course in 2013. Even this aspect needs deeper inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. 5. Considering the nature of offence and the complexity of the investigation, we find merits in the submissions of the State that custodial interrogation in such a case is inevitable and the only way forward to unravel the mystery confounded from the facts and emerging from the evidence already collected and in particular to corroborate the said position. In the case of CBI v. Anil Sharma, : AIR 1997 SC 3806 , in paragraph 6 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed thus:- "We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulate by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 6. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 6. In our opinion, considering the material on record which prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant and his complicity in the commission of offence and having committed the same by appearing in the examination at Indore though resident of Uttar Pradesh, coupled with the fact that similarity of answers given by the applicant and the beneficiary was matching to the extent of 194 questions out of 200 including 138 right answers and 56 wrong answers and the applicant was sitting in front of the candidate who was benefited by the act of commission and omission of the applicant and moreso, the investigation of the crime in question is a complex investigation involving large number of candidates and that the prosecution has also assured the Supreme Court that final charge-sheet in all the Vyapam Examination Scam cases will be fled against the accused persons, named and to be named, in the concerned 54 crimes, involving more than 2000 accused before 15.03.2015, any indulgence shown to applicant would only delay the process of investigation and fling of the charge-sheet. 7. The counsel for the applicant, however, has placed reliance on the order passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 811/2015 in Sant Kumar Maurya v. State of Madhya Pradesh dated 30.01.2015. The said order reads thus: "There shall be interim protection to the petitioner against arrest till 30.04.2015. The petitioner to co-operate with the investigating officer in the meantime." 8. No doubt, the petitioner before the Supreme Court is also one of the scorer, who had appeared in the same Examination conducted in 2012 by VYAPAM. However, in our opinion, in the fact situation of the present case, the question of granting anticipatory bail to the applicant does not arise. 9. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in the fact situation of the present case. Hence dismissed. M.Cr.C. No. 2255/2015 10. However, in our opinion, in the fact situation of the present case, the question of granting anticipatory bail to the applicant does not arise. 9. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in the fact situation of the present case. Hence dismissed. M.Cr.C. No. 2255/2015 10. Even in this application for grant of anticipatory bail, the role ascribed to the applicant by the prosecution is that he appeared as Scorer having conspired with the racketeers and middleman in the same examination conducted by VYAPAM in the year 2012 and is, therefore, suspected to be involved in conspiracy in commission of crime registered as 12/2013. 11. The role of the applicant is identical to the role ascribed to the applicant in the leading case (M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015). The only difference between the two applicants is that this applicant is not pursuing M.B.B.S. as of now. Even this applicant furnished wrong residential address of Indore, though he was permanent resident of Pilibhit (U.P.). The similarity of answers given by the two candidates is almost to the extent of 186 questions, out of which, 132 correct answers and 54 wrong answers. This similarity raises strong suspicion about the case of conspiracy and the involvement of the applicant as Scorer in the commission of crime committed to benefit the candidate who was sitting behind him during the same examination. Hence even this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for the same reasons as stated in M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015. M.Cr.C. No. 2256/2015 12. Even in this application for anticipatory bail, the facts as stated in the leading case (M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015) are almost identical. Even this applicant, according to the prosecution, appeared as Scorer in the stated examination to aid and assist the candidate sitting behind him having conspired with the racketeers and middleman. The applicant gave incorrect address in his form. The similarity of answers given by two candidates is of 185 questions, out of which, 112 correct answers and 73 wrong answers are matching. The applicant was given opportunity to appear before the Investigating Officer for recording of his statement but applicant has not revealed quality information so far. Hence even this anticipatory bail application is dismissed for the same reasons as stated in M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015. M.Cr.C. No. 2259/2015 13. The applicant was given opportunity to appear before the Investigating Officer for recording of his statement but applicant has not revealed quality information so far. Hence even this anticipatory bail application is dismissed for the same reasons as stated in M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015. M.Cr.C. No. 2259/2015 13. Even in this application, we find from the record produced before us that the possibility of applicant having contacted with Racketeer Jagdish Sagar and managed to arrange the sitting arrangement of the applicant to appear as Scorer in the VYAPAM examination to aid and assist the candidate sitting behind him, has come in possession of the Investigating Officer investigating Crime No. 12/2013. 14. The similarity of answers given by the applicant and the candidate (beneficiary) is to the extent of 167 questions out of which 125 correct answers and 42 wrong answers are matching, which is certainly very high rate of resemblance including of wrong answers. The record produced before us also indicates that in spite of best efforts made by the Investigating Officer, the applicant has not made himself available for recording of his evidence. The notices ultimately were served on the uncle of the applicant at Uttar Pradesh. The applicant has not made himself available in spite of repeated requisitions sent by the Investigating Officer, which also strengthens the prosecution suspicion against the applicant for having committed the alleged offence. It is not a case where the applicant has been falsely implicated as such. The name of applicant is found in the diary maintained by Racketeer Jagdish Sagar. All this is matter of investigation. Hence even this application for anticipatory bail for the same reasons as stated in M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015. M.Cr.C. No. 2257/2015 15. Even in this application, we find from the record produced before us that the possibility of applicant having contacted middleman and Racketeer Jagdish Sagar and managed to arrange the sitting arrangement of the applicant to appear as Scorer in the VYAPAM examination to aid and assist the candidate sitting behind him, has come in possession of the Investigating Officer investigating Crime No. 12/2013. 16. The similarity of answers given by the applicant and the candidate (beneficiary) is to the extent of 197 questions out of which 106 correct answers and 91 wrong answers are matching, which is certainly very high rate of resemblance including of wrong answers. 16. The similarity of answers given by the applicant and the candidate (beneficiary) is to the extent of 197 questions out of which 106 correct answers and 91 wrong answers are matching, which is certainly very high rate of resemblance including of wrong answers. The record produced before us also indicates that in spite of best efforts made by the Investigating Officer, the applicant has not made himself available for recording of his evidence. The notices ultimately were served on the sister of the applicant namely Gudiya at Uttar Pradesh. The applicant has not made himself available in spite of repeated requisitions sent by the Investigating Officer, which also strengthens the prosecution suspicion against the applicant for having committed the alleged offence. It is not a case where the applicant has been falsely implicated as such. The name of applicant is found in the diary maintained by Racketeer Jagdish Sagar. All this is a matter of investigation. Hence, even this anticipatory bail application is dismissed for the same reasons as stated in M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015. M.Cr.C. No. 2466/2015 17. The applicant in this case is suspect in Crime No. 539/2013 for the offences commonly known as VYAPAM Examination Scam Cases. The involvement of applicant is in respect of examination conducted in the year 2013. Besides this, the modus operandi in the commission of alleged crime for VYAPAM examination 2012 and 2013 was virtually the same. According to prosecution, the applicant appeared in the examination as Scorer and his role number was adjusted by the officials of VYAPAM to ensure that he sits before the candidate for whom he would act as Scorer. The Racketeer of this offence is one Santosh Gupta. Even in this case, the similarity of answers is as large as 189 questions, out of 200 questions including 138 right answers and 51 wrong answers. The record of the Investigating Officer also refers to the fact that attempts were made initially to ask the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer for recording of his statement, however, he did not appear. As a result of which, police party was deputed to effect service of notice which was eventually served on his relative as he was not found at his residence. 18. Accordingly, even this application for anticipatory bail is rejected for the same reasons as in M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015.