Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 37 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Pradeep Kumar Tyagi

2015-01-09

A.M.KHANWILKAR, ALOK ARADHE

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. These applications are filed by the State for cancellation of bail granted by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 1.10.2014 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.13869/2014 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.13866/2014 respectively. 3. The applicant is common in both these applications. He has been named as racketeer in connection with the offences committed during examination conducted by VYAPAM in six crimes being Crimes No.768/2012, 8/2013, 737/2013, 193/2014, 194/2014 and 248/2014. As per the assignment dated 25.3.2014 the bail applications arising from criminal cases concerning VYAPAM examination can be proceeded and dealt with only by the Division Bench -I at the respective Benches – Jabalpur, Indore and Gwalior. The assignment reads thus :- “In supersession of order dated 16.2.2014, it is hereby directed that all petitions under the Constitution of India/applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning or arising from the criminal cases registered by Police/SIT and/or pending before any criminal Court in respect of Scams pertaining to examinations conducted by Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board, Bhopal including PMT Scam, except the cases already transferred to the Principal Seat at Jabalpur by special order, shall henceforth be listed before and heard by the DB-I of the concerned jurisdiction at Principal Seat at Jabalpur and Benches at Indore and Gwalior, respectively. This order shall come into operation with immediate effect from today. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE 25.3.2014” 4. In view of the assignment in vogue both the applications for bail filed by the respondent could be entertained only by DB-I and could not have proceeded before the Single Judge. 5. According to the respondent, the investigation of these crimes is not done by the STF This argument is ill-advised. For, all bail applications – be it in respect of crime investigated by local police or STF concerning examination conducted by VYAPAM – are assigned only to DB-I. Notably, the Supreme Court has already recorded statement of the State Government made through the Attorney General in Special Leave Petition (C) Civil Case No.16456/2014 - that STF itself will be investigating or supervising the investigation of all the criminal cases concerning the offences committed during examination conducted by VYAPAM. In other words, the investigation of crimes in question are under supervision of STF and which investigation is being monitored by the Division Bench of this Court in suo moto proceedings in Writ Petition No.6385/2014. In other words, the investigation of crimes in question are under supervision of STF and which investigation is being monitored by the Division Bench of this Court in suo moto proceedings in Writ Petition No.6385/2014. 6. On this count alone both the bail orders granted in favour of respondent in Crime No.194/2014 and Crime No.193/2014 respectively stand cancelled being coram non-judice, in terms of this order, in exercise of powers under section 439(2) read with 482 of CrPC. Applications are allowed. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.15624/2014 Ms. Indu Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri P. K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard counsel for the parties. This application is for grant of bail to the applicant in Crime No.737/2013. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.737/2013 by the STF Police Station Bhopal – commonly known as VYAPAM examination scam cases – for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, and under section 3(D) 1 and 2/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937. 7. The role ascribed to the applicant in the present case is that of a beneficiary. In other crimes, in which the applicant has been named as accused, the role ascribed to him is that of a racketeer. 8. Today, by a separate order we have cancelled the bail granted to the applicant in connection with two other offences. In the present crime, investigation is still in progress. Co-accused Shailendra Singh Chouhan, who acted as middleman between the applicant and the beneficiaries is yet to be arrested. He is reportedly absconding. 9. As a result, question of releasing the applicant on bail, at this stage, does not arise merely because charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant in connection with Crime No.737/2013 on 24.6.2014. As further investigation of the said crime is still pending, until filing of the final charge sheet or arrest of Shailendra Singh Chouhan, which ever happens earlier, the question of considering request for grant of bail the applicant; does not arise. Accordingly, this application is rejected. P. K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for applicant/State; Ms. Indu Pandey for respondents.