Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 503 (MP)

Nathu Singh Rajput v. State of M. P.

2015-04-27

SUBHASH KAKADE, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. At the out set, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw I.A. No. 2437/2015, an application for grant of interim bail to the applicant on the ground of sickness and illness of the applicant, as not pressed with liberty to raise all such grounds mentioned in the I.A. while arguing this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on merits. 2. Considering such prayer, I.A. is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with the liberty aforesaid. 3. State Counsel is under the receipt of the case diary. 4. In view of the availability of the case diary, the petition is taken up for consideration on merits. Applicant's counsel is directed to make his submission on merits. 5. Heard on merits of this petition. 6. On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicant as he is in custody since 10.03.2015 in connection with Crime No. 449/2013 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences of Sections 419, 420, 468,471 read with Sections 201 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examination Act. 7. Applicant's counsel after taking us through the papers placed on the record in support of the petition alongwith the impugned rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that the applicant has been impleaded in the matter only on the basis of the memorandum of the other co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act while he has not committed any alleged offence. He did not involve himself in any manner in the alleged criminal conspiracy to secure the admission of his son Brajbhan Singh Rajput in the alleged medical course by managing the illegal affairs as alleged by the prosecution. In continuance, by referring the memorandum of the other co-accused he said that on taking into consideration the same as accepted in its entirety, even then the ingredients of any of the alleged offence is not prima facie made out against the applicant. Even otherwise for the sake of the argument, if the applicant has given some money to his son for his education, then mere on such ground the applicant can not be deemed to be an accused of the alleged offence. Even otherwise for the sake of the argument, if the applicant has given some money to his son for his education, then mere on such ground the applicant can not be deemed to be an accused of the alleged offence. Apart this, he argued the case on the ground of ill- health and physical incapacity of the applicant saying that near about before two years on account of the gangrene his one leg has been amputated near knee and due to that he is not in a position to walk himself without assistance of the other person, even he could not carry out his regular activities without assistance of the other person. The surgery of his one eye has already been carried out while the same surgery is required in his another eye, for which no proper treatment is being provided by the jail authority in jail and it is wrongly stated by the jail authority that the applicant has refused to admit in the hospital to carry out such surgery. In continuance, he said that he has filed so many reports of the pathological and other investigation of the petitioner carried out in the year 2013, on which the inference could be drawn that the applicant is a sufferer of some acute disease. On asking the counsel specifically that what type of the disease was in existence so the alleged investigation was carried out and after carrying out such investigation, by which doctor through which prescription the treatment was provided, on which the applicant's counsel submits that he is not in possession of any such document to show that from which doctor the treatment was taken by the applicant after carrying out the aforesaid investigation and whatsoever papers were available with the wife of the applicant, the same have been filed on record and except that, no paper of treatment is available with the wife of the applicant and therefore the same could not be filed before this court. In addition, he said that the applicant wants to get proper treatment of his eyes from the choice of his doctor out side of the jail because inside of the jail no proper treatment may be provided by the jail authority. In addition, he said that the applicant wants to get proper treatment of his eyes from the choice of his doctor out side of the jail because inside of the jail no proper treatment may be provided by the jail authority. In addition, it was stated that the charge sheet has already been filed in the matter and trial will take a longer period and therefore the applicant should not be kept in jail by way of pre-trial detention and prayed to extend the benefit of bail by allowing this petition. 8. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument, the State counsel with the assistance of the case diary said that there is sufficient evidence collected by the investigation agency in the shape of the memorandum of the other co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act so also the memorandum of the present applicant recorded under the same provision, according to which it is apparent that the alleged money to secure the admission of his son in the medical course by illegal means was provided by the applicant, so in such premises he involved himself in the alleged conspiracy by breaking the system of the competitive examination of PMT established by VYAPAM and thereby he has committed the alleged offence. In continuance, he also apprised us that the supplementary investigation of the impugned crime is also going on and till the supplementary investigation is carried out and charge sheet is filed against the co-accused, if the applicant is released on bail, then he may prejudice the prosecution case. He further said that the applicant had not only committed the alleged offence defined in the books but by such activity he also deprived those genuine and bona fide students, who appeared in the alleged examination on the basis of their own labour and study, but could not get success, because of the offending activities of the persons like the applicant and other racketeers, in getting the admission in the medical course at their proper age to make their career in the medical field. So in such premises looking to the seriousness of the offence, even after filing the charge sheet, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. So in such premises looking to the seriousness of the offence, even after filing the charge sheet, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. State Counsel further submits that so far as the medical ground is concerned, the jail authority is providing proper treatment and is still ready to provide the same as per requirement of the applicant in respect of all diseases, but the applicant himself has refused to cooperate in taking such proper treatment. In such premises, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record alongwith the rejection order of the Sessions Court. As per the available evidence in the case diary and the papers of the charge sheet, the applicant had involved himself in the alleged conspiracy to secure the admission of his son Brajbhan Singh Rajput in medical course by managing the illegal affairs through the person, the part of the racketeers by breaking the established system of holding the competitive examination of the P.M.T. by VYAPAM. Through Bhupendra Singh Yadav. He has made available Rs. 50,000/- to the middleman and the racketeers through his son. On arresting the other co-accused, son of the applicant Brajbhan Singh Rajput, on recording his memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he categorically stated about the aforesaid, so also the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence and as per submission of the State Counsel, supplementary investigation of the impugned crime in respect of the aforesaid illegal admission of the son of the applicant is still being carried out by the investigation agency and if the applicant is released on bail, then such supplementary investigation may be prejudiced and the applicant may interfere in the process of the investigation and collecting the valuable information, so also in making the arrest of the other co-accused as other relevant co-accused are to be arrested in the matter and their interrogations are also to be carried out. So in such premises, we have found sufficient prima facie evidence in the case against the applicant and mere on the basis of filing the charge sheet he does not deserve for grant of bail on merits in the matter unless all the relevant co-accused are arrested and either they are charge sheeted or any final report in that regard is filed. 11. So far as the medical ground is concerned, it is apparent from the record that before hearing the argument various reports regarding health condition of the applicant were called from the concerning jail where the applicant is in judicial custody. According to such report of the Central Jail Gwalior dt.30.3.2015, the applicant was suffering with the swelling on his toe and ankle and he is also a patient of Prostatic Hyperplasia. It is also stated that the applicant was suffering with some eye problem and that's why long before the surgery of his left eye was carried out while such surgery of the right eye is required. He has also become dump since last nine months and before two years on developing gangrene in the left lag, the same was amputated below the knee. In subsequent report dt.15.4.2015 all such things as stated in the earlier report have been mentioned and surgery of aforesaid other eye was also stated to be necessary with further averment that the necessary investigation with respect of the disease is being carried out from J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior and the treatment is being also provided from the jail hospital. In all, the condition of the applicant was shown to be satisfactory. Again in the third report dt.23.4.2015, it is stated that under the advise of the specialist doctor of the J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior, the requisite investigation of the applicant is being carried out and the treatment is also being provided. It is further stated that due to amputation in the right leg before two years, on account of gangrene, the applicant is not in a position to walk independently. So on medical ground specially to carry out the surgery of the eye, the prayer of the applicant may be considered by the court for some period. 12. It is further stated that due to amputation in the right leg before two years, on account of gangrene, the applicant is not in a position to walk independently. So on medical ground specially to carry out the surgery of the eye, the prayer of the applicant may be considered by the court for some period. 12. In view of the aforesaid reports and the papers placed on record on behalf of the applicant, it is apparent that the applicant is suffering with amputation of his leg since last two year, but jail authority has stated through the State Counsel that they are competent to keep the applicant in jail by providing the proper treatment from the expert doctor. So in such premises, on account of any other disease except the surgery of eye at present the applicant do not deserve for grant of regular bail unless all relevant co-accused are arrested and interrogated by the police and appropriate report or final charge sheets are filed against them in the matter. 13. In view of the available circumstances, at present, we are not inclined to grant the regular bail to the applicant on merits of the matter, but however, considering the medical ground for grant of bail, according to which the surgery of one eye of the applicant has to be carried out and the applicant wants such surgery from the doctor of his choice on his own expenses. So keeping in view his age alongwith the circumstances that the surgery of one eye of the applicant was carried out by some doctor long before and probably the applicant wants such surgery from same doctor, this petition is allowed on medical ground and the applicant is directed to be released on bail initially for fifteen days from the date of his release with direction to surrender himself on the fifteenth day. 14. It is further directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/JMFC Gwalior, the applicant shall be released on bail for fifteen days from the date of his release with further direction to surrender himself on fifteenth day before the same court before closing hours of such court to go in judicial custody with further liberty to revive the prayer on necessity, on admissible grounds 15. Certified Copy.