Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 422 (MP)

Vivek Singh Nirjan v. State Of M. P.

2015-04-10

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2015
ORDER : U.C. MAHESHWARI, J. On behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 449/2013 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences of Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examination Act. 2. Petitioner's counsel after taking us through the petition as well as the annexed papers including the rejection order of the Sessions Court and an order of the Apex Court extending benefit of anticipatory bail to some of the co-accused in the matter relating to scam of PMT Examination of VYAPAM argued that on taking into consideration the evidence collected by the investigating agency till today in the case diary the prima facie ingredient of any of the alleged offence is not made out against the petitioner, as such he has been falsely implicated in the case by fabricating a false story. In continuation, he said that similarly situated co-accused Sarita Sharma and others have already been extended benefit of anticipatory bail by the Apex Court, hence, on the ground of parity also, the petitioner is entitled for extension of such benefit and prayed to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, State counsel opposed the aforesaid prayer with the assistance of the case diary saying that the present petitioner being a mediator and a middleman had managed the affairs with the assistance of Pravin Patil in consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs to secure the admission of a student Devendra Gautam in medical education in illegal manner and thereby the petitioner by involving himself with the other co-accused and the racketeers of the impugned scam committed the alleged offence for which sufficient evidence collected by the investigating agency is available in the case diary, on which in further investigation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, which could not be carried out unless the petitioner is arrested. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Having heard counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the case diary and the papers placed on record along with rejection order of the Sessions Court. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Having heard counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the case diary and the papers placed on record along with rejection order of the Sessions Court. On such perusal, we have found sufficient prima facie circumstances against the petitioner showing that he being a middleman involved himself under criminal conspiracy with the alleged one of the racketeers Praveen Patel to secure the admission of Devendra Gautam in illegal manner in consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs in the medical course and thereby the petitioner had not only broken the system of VYAPAM to hold the competitive examination of PMT, but by such act, he also deprived to those genuine and bonafide students to get admission in medical course at their proper age who appeared in such competitive examination on the basis of their own labour and study. As such, due to the illegal activities of the middlemen and racketeers like the petitioner, such students could not get such admission to make their career in the medical field at their proper age. Even otherwise, in view of the evidence collected by the investigating agency, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the matter which could be carried out only after making the arrest of the petitioner. 5. So far as question of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity is concerned, we are of the considered view that in view of available evidence in the case diary, the cases of Sarita Sharma and other persons are squarely distinguishable from the case of the present petitioner. Even otherwise in a cited order, no binding principle has been laid down by the Apex Court and bail matter is always decided on the basis of collected evidence against the concerning accused. So in such premises, the cited orders are not helping the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we have not found any merit in the matter to allow this petition, hence, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.