Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 93 (MP)

Jitendra Kumar v. State of M. P.

2021-02-02

ANAND PATHAK, SHEEL NAGU

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard through video conferencing. 2. This is first application u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. 3. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 201, 204, 408, 419, 420, 468, 471, 477-A IPC., Ss. 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1988 and Ss. 4/3D(1)(2) of M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 registered as RC2172015S0009 (Crime No. 271/2014) pending before IV Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CBI (VYAPAM), (M.P.) 4. Petitioner is a candidate who had vacated the seat allotted to him for some extraneous consideration and thus is alleged with offence of cheating and forgery in M.P. PMT Examination 2011 followed by admission to private college nomenclature as Chirayu Medical College, Bhopal. 5. Learned counsel for CBI Shri Newaskar by filing reply informs that charge-sheet qua petitioner has been filed on 7/1/2021. Reply also reveals that petitioner has cooperated in investigation process as and when summoned by Investigating Agency and therefore custodial interrogation is not required. 6. Moreover, the principle laid down by Apex Court including the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 SCC 694 and subsequent decisions not only emphasize the importance of gravity of offence but also the attribute of accused cooperating in investigation and trial as one of the persuading considerations while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, petitioner as is evident from reply of CBI has appeared as and when required during investigation. Thus, sending petitioner to custody in the given facts would be akin to punishing him for the offence which is yet to be established thereby violating the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence i.e. "presumption of innocence". 7. Among few important factors to be considered while deciding application for anticipatory bail are gravity of offence and also conduct of accused in cooperating in investigation and the prospects of doing so in future and also in trial. Apex court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) in somewhat similar situation came to hold:- "89. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. Apex court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) in somewhat similar situation came to hold:- "89. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. 90. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage. Whether the powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. are subject to limitation of section 437 Cr.P.C." 8. Said judgment has been referred with approval in subsequent decision of Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State Of Gujarat & Another (2016) 1 SCC 152 and also in Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (Nct Of Delhi) and another (2020) 5 SCC 1 but with certain reservations in regard to the aspect of imposition of conditions while granting anticipatory bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties and considering the fact that investigation in the matter qua petitioner is over and thus custodial interrogation is not required and that petitioner appears to have participated in the investigation by appearing as and when summoned, this court without entering into merits of the matter lest it may prejudice learned trial judge, deems it appropriate to confirm and continue the interim order passed by this court subject to same terms & conditions as contained in the order dated 25/1/2021. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of finally. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information. 12. C.C as per rules.