Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2017
MCRC-2104-2017
(DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
03-04-2017
Shri Gaffar Mohammad, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
This is the first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C by applicant-Dharmendra Kumar Singh, who has been arrested by Police on 25.9.2016 in Crime No.701/2016, Police Station-Madhav Nagar, District Ujjain, in connection with offence under Sections 465, 420, 419 and 120-B of IPC. No other bail application is either filed, pending or decided by any other court, by this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Bail application filed in Criminal Case No.1107/2016 has been rejected by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain vide order dated 18.11.2016.
Bail applications- M.Cr.C.No.12350/2016 of co- accused Harendra Singh and MCRC No.12683/2016 of co-accused Kumar Gourav have been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2016 and 04.01.2017 respectively. As per prosecution case, in the recruitment process of Constable in 2016, during the physical test on 24.9.2016, it was found that the finger print of eight candidates did not match with the data preserved with U.S.T. Global Company, Bhopal. It appears that in place of the candidates present in the physical test, some other persons appeared in the written test. Out of these eight persons, three candidates viz.; Harendra Singh, Kumar Gaurav (present applicant) and Dharmendra Kumar were interrogated. The applicant could not reveal the correct information of center and time of the examination. It is also found that he had applied some glue like; fevicol on his thumb. Similarly, other two accused persons also could not reveal the correct information. On interrogation, all the three persons including the applicant admitted that some other persons had appeared in their place in the examination. The police registered the case and it is under investigation to find out the persons, who appeared as solvers in place of the applicant and the other co-accused persons. Information regarding the solvers is being obtained from the UST Company, Bhopal. Investigation in respect of mobile and SIM seized from the accused persons is in progress. Search of other co-accused persons is going on. According to the prosecution, this is an offence committed by an organized gang of criminals. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the accused is an innocent person. He has been falsely implicated in the offence. He is not directly involved in the crime. He himself appeared in the examination and also appeared in the physical test on the ground. He has been implicated in the offence due to fault of bio-metric data. He is in custody from 25.9.2016. No other criminal antecedents has been attributed to him. The conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time. To bolster his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the bail order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in M.Cr.C.12647/2016 (Ramavtar vs. State of M.P.) and submitted that similarly situated persons have been granted bail and claimed parity. It is further submitted that the case of the present applicant is different from the case of co-accused as mark-sheet of 8 th class of co-accused Harendra Singh was found forged.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is a case of attempt to enter in the public service that too for the police department on the basis of fraud by adopting false means. Bail granted in case of Ramavtar(supra) has been granted in the facts and circumstances of that case. Facts of the case in hand are distinguishable, therefore, parity cannot be claimed.
As per the record, allegations against the the present petitioner are similar to the co-accused Kumar Gourav and application submitted by Kumar Gourav has been rejected vide order dated 04.01.2017 in MCRC No.12683/2016 by this Court.
Considering the allegations made against the applicant, seriousness, gravity and nature clubbed with status and stage of the investigation of the crime, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Therefore, MCRC No.2104/2017 is dismissed.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE