Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 399 (MP)

Ankit Verma v. State of M. P.

2015-04-08

S.K.GUPTA, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Sameer Patidar, Sub Inspector Police posted in SIT Gwalior is present in person alongwith the case diary of the impugned crime. As per the submission of the State Counsel, the aforesaid police officer is a person of the constituted team for the investigation of the impugned crime. 2. In view of the availability of the case diary, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard. 4. On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 285/2014 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination. 5. Applicant's counsel after taking us through the papers placed on the record alongwith the impugned rejection order of the Sessions Court so also the other orders passed by the Division Bench No. 1 of this court at Jabalpur argued that on taking into consideration the evidence collected by the Investigation Agency till today, which is available in the case diary, as accepted in its entirety, even then ingredients of any of the alleged offences are not made out against the applicant. As such he has been falsely implicated in the matter by fabricating the false story. By referring the memorandum of Gaurav Bhadoriya under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the counsel submits that according to it through such Gaurav Bhadoriya the applicant had made efforts to get the illegal admission in the medical course in the year 2010. In such memorandum, the names of the co-accused Amit Sharma and Atul Sharma were also disclosed. In continuation he also said that pursuant to the aforesaid information of memorandum after taking the arrest, the memorandum of Atul Sharma, the co-accused, was also recorded. In such memorandum, he has stated that in consideration of the sum they accompanying with the co-accused managed the affairs to secure the seat for the applicant in medical course in the year 2012. In such memorandum, he has stated that in consideration of the sum they accompanying with the co-accused managed the affairs to secure the seat for the applicant in medical course in the year 2012. In such premises, he said that in view of such material inconsistency in initial case of the prosecution and also in the light of the principle that the memorandum of Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the other co-accused could not be a foundation to draw any inference against the other co-accused like the applicant, no inference could be drawn against the applicant that he had committed the offence. He further said that in the lack of any admissible and reliable evidence in the case diary against the applicant, he deserves for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail. The prayer to extend such benefit is also made on the ground of parity saying that some of the co- accused situated in the circumstances are directed to be released on bail either by the Division Bench No. 1 of Jabalpur or by the Apex Court. 6. Apart this, it was also argued that on extending the benefit of anticipatory bail, the applicant is ready and willing to abide all the terms and conditions, which would be imposed by the court in its discretion and with this submission the counsel prayed to allow this petition. 7. On the other hand, by responding the aforesaid prayer of the applicant's counsel, with the assistance of the case diary, the State Counsel submits that mere perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that there is prima facie circumstances against the applicant regarding his involvement in the alleged offence, according to which he accompanying with his father had managed the affairs through middleman; Gaurav Bhadoriya and the aforesaid other persons Amit Sharma and Atul Sharma to get the admission in the medical course by breaking the established system of the competitive examination of the PMT held by the VYAPAM in consideration of the sum of Rs. Eighteen lac and the applicant is the only person, who after obtaining such sum from his father has paid the same to the racketeers through Gaurav Bhadoriya and others. Eighteen lac and the applicant is the only person, who after obtaining such sum from his father has paid the same to the racketeers through Gaurav Bhadoriya and others. In such premises, the applicant does not deserve for extending the benefit of bail or in any case his custodial interrogation with respect of the material facts of the matter is required which could not be carried out unless the applicant is arrested in the matter. He further said that the aforesaid other co-accused Gaurav Bhadoriya, Amit Sharma and Atul Sharma so also Brajmohan Satwar have been arrested in the matter and they are still in judicial custody and on making their interrogation, the material information regarding offending act of the applicant was available to the prosecution and therefore in further investigation the custody of the applicant is required. Even otherwise in the matter of the applicant, no order of anticipatory bail may be passed by discriminating the other co-accused who are facing the judicial custody in the matter. He further said that one of the co-accused A.K. Verma, the father of the present applicant is still absconded, who is yet to be arrested in the matter. In addition, it was also argued that by the aforesaid act, the applicant has committed not only the alleged offence defined under the Indian Penal Code and other laws, but by such act, he had also deprived to such bona fide and genuine students, who appeared in the alleged competitive examination of PMT held by VYAPAM on the basis of their own study and labour with a dream to become doctor therefore the persons like the applicant had destroyed the career of such genuine persons at their proper age. In such premises, the applicant does not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record alongwith the report, which was filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency by the aforesaid police officer today in the sealed cover. 9. It is noted that such report was opened in the open court and perused. 10. 8. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record alongwith the report, which was filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency by the aforesaid police officer today in the sealed cover. 9. It is noted that such report was opened in the open court and perused. 10. Mere perusal of the case diary as well as the aforesaid report of the investigating agency it is apparent that the name of the present applicant was not initially mentioned in the FIR as culprit of the offence, but it is apparent from the record that during investigation of the crime various co- accused have been arrested and on disclosing the information by them their memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded. Initially the memorandum of first accused was recorded. On such information and coupled with the other available evidence, the other accused was arrested. Again according to the same procedure, on availability of the new information on the memorandum of subsequent accused, the other accused were arrested, who disclosed the above mentioned information and on that information, the investigation agency came to know regarding the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged scam and still the investigation of the case is going on not only against the applicant but against various other co-accused. 11. From the case diary, we have found prima facie evidence against the applicant showing his apparent involvement in the case whereby in order to secure his seat in the medical course, he through middle men Gaurav Bhadoriya, Amit and Atul and other racketeers had managed the illegal affairs and thereby broken the established system of examination of PMT held by VYAPAM and ultimately as alleged by such illegal means he has secured the admission. It is apparent that due to such illegal admission of the applicant, the other genuine students, who appeared in the such competitive examination on the basis of their own devoted study and labour could not get success at their proper age to enter in the medical education. So in such premises, the applicant with the racketeers and middle men has not committed the offence punishable under the law, but he has also committed the grievous and serious offence against the society at large. So in such premises, the applicant with the racketeers and middle men has not committed the offence punishable under the law, but he has also committed the grievous and serious offence against the society at large. In such premises, the applicant does not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail. 12. Apart the aforesaid, when various co-accused have been arrested and sent in the judicial custody, then there is no any special circumstance in the case to adopt a discriminatory view to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant and the provision of anticipatory bail has also not been enacted to protect the person like applicant, who committed the illegal act defined under the law books as well as against the society. So in such premises also he does not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail. 13. So far as the ground of parity is concerned, as argued by the learned counsel, after perusing the cited orders either of this court or of the apex court, we are of the considered view that in any of such order no binding principle of law has been laid down and as per the settled proposition unless a binding principle is laid down by the superior court, such order could not be deemed to have the binding effect in the other matters. Even otherwise the bail matter is always decided on the basis of available facts and circumstances available in the case diary against the concerning accused and the case of one accused can not be influenced by the facts relating to the other co-accused. So in such premises, any of the orders cited by the applicant counsel is not helping to allow this petition. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have not found any merit in this petition. Consequently, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. In the available circumstances, the Reader is directed to place the aforesaid report submitted on behalf of the SIT again in the sealed cover and the office is also directed not to open such envelop for any purpose or for giving the certified copy of such sealed document to any of the parties unless specific order of the court.