Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Singhal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2015
1
M.Cr.C.No.3440/2015
M.Cr.C.No.3441/2015
M.Cr.C.No.3837/2015
M.Cr.C. No.3901/2015
24.03.2015
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate with Shri
Shantanoo Saxena, Shri Priyankush Jain and Ku. Namrata
Keshwani, counsel for the applicants.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Addl. Advocate with Shri P.
Gupta, learned P.L. for the respondents/State.
M.Cr.C. Nos.3440/2015 & 3441/2015 Heard counsel for the parties.
These two applications can be disposed of together by common order.
Both the applicants have applied for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.14/2013 registered with STF Police Station, Bhopal -commonly known as VYAPAM Scam Cases - for the offences punishable under Sections 402, 420, 120-B of IPC, Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 3(d)(1)(2)/4 of the M.P. Manyataprapta Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1977.
The role ascribed to the applicants by the prosecution is that of having facilitated son of applicant in M.Cr.C. No.3441/2015 in the commission of unfair means during the examination conducted by VYAPAM.
The applicant in M.Cr.C. No.3440/2015 is a builder by occupation. He interacted with middleman/racketeer including Bharat Mishra, who happens to be his acquaintance for making necessary arrangement to commit unfair means during the 2 examination by Prakhar, his nephew.
According to the prosecution, the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.3441/2015 along with his son - Prakhar, who are ordinarily residents of Harda stayed with Vipin Goel at Bhopal during the examination and Prakhar appeared in the examination from Bhopal centre for the reasons best known to them. Further, Vipin Goel using his good offices interacted with middleman/racketeer - Bharat Mishra and Nitin Mohindra also, for making necessary arrangement.
The Investigating Officer has been able to get hold of telephone calls exchanged between the middleman/racketeer and the applicants during the relevant period, which is indicative of having conspired to commit the offence in question. In connection with the leads, which are already available with the Investigating Officer, he issued notices to the applicants to appear before him for recording of their statements. Both the applicants did not make themselves available before the Investigating officer, as a result of which, he had no option but to announce rewards for securing arrests of applicants in connection with the crime under consideration. The Investigating Officer has also resorted to action under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. for securing the presence of applicants for the purpose of investigation of Crime No.14/2013, which proceedings are pending wherein the applicants have been ordered to appear before the Court on or before 30 th March, 2015.
3It is, fairly, accepted by the counsel for the State that as of today from the information gathered by the Investigating Officer, it appears that both these applicants were concerned only with Prakhar - one candidate. However, unless the investigation of Crime No.14/2013 is completed in all respects, it may not be possible to take any firm view in that regard. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the liberty given to applicants to appear before the Investigating Officer, they had appeared in the Office of the Investigating Officer on 12 & 14 th March, 2015, for 13 hours 59 minutes in aggregate in M.Cr.C. No.3441/2015 and 13 hours 44 minutes in aggregate in the case of applicant in M.Cr.C. No.3440/2015. However, according to the Investigating Officer, the interrogation with the applicants was not fruitful as no further clues have been divulged by them during the said period. In view of the attitude of the applicants during the said interrogation, the Investigating Officer is convinced that custodial interrogation of the applicants has become necessary. Besides the phone call details made between the applicants and the middleman/racketeer, the Investigating Officer would like to interrogate the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.3440/2015 with regard to the information received from the computer details recovered from Nitin Mohindra mentioning about payments by separate cheques and cash amount as well as on matters as to how the applicants received the question papers in advance in connection with the said examination and the source from where the same were received and in respect of 4 matters which unfolded after receipt of the said papers. The correct information can be unraveled by the Investigating Officer only on the basis of the custodial interrogation and confronting the two applicants in the said process.
In our opinion, therefore, the applicants cannot be shown indulgence of grant of anticipatory bail. We are of the considered opinion that the fact situation in the present applications, is almost similar to the case of Dr. Narmada Prasad Agarwal vs State of M.P., decided on 23.1.2015 in M.Cr.C. No.510/2015. All arguments which have been canvassed by the counsel for the applicants in the present applications have already been dealt with in the said decision.
Counsel for the applicants has, however, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Jain vs State of M.P. in SLP (Criminal) No.5921/2014 and contended that the Investigating Officer must produce some material to show that the case of app1icants is different than the case of Kailash Chandra Jain, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court. This contention has already been turned down in the case of Dr. Narmada Prasad Agarwal (supra) and for the same reasons, does not commend to us. Additionally, we may place on record that in the present case, the Investigating Officer along with the note sheets prepared on the basis of factual position emerging from the case diary has pointed out that custodial interrogation of applicants may be essential in connection with the 5 information discerned from the computer record recovered from Nitin Mohindra - Senior System Analyst working in VYAPAM.
Taking overall view of the matter, for the reasons recorded in the case of Dr. Narmada Prasad Agarwal (supra) and considering the fact that the applicants have not cooperated during the investigation and have not disclosed relevant materials, which the Investigating Officer wanted to be explained and keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of CBI Vs. Anil Sharma1 (Paragraph 6), we have no hesitation in rejecting these applications. It will be useful to reproduce paragraph 6 of the case of Anil Sharma (Supra), which reads thus :
"We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulate by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be 1 AIR 1997 SC 3806 6 countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
For the reasons already recorded, these applications are rejected.
Registry is directed to keep the copy of the note-sheets along with the relevant documents produced by the counsel for the State, in sealed cover in the custody of the Registrar General.
M.Cr.C. Nos.3837/2015 & 3901/2015 Heard counsel for the parties.
These applications have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the decision of the trial Court issuing warrants to the applicants to remain present on or before 30 th March, 2015.
When these applications are taken up for hearing, counsel for the applicants seeks adjournment on the ground that Mr. Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate will be arguing these applications.
We fail to understand as to how the applicants on the one hand can apply for anticipatory bail and when that is rejected, ask for adjournment on applications, which are intended to 7 challenge the order passed by the trial Court directing their personal presence before the Court in proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Code. However, since the order challenged, requires the applicants to appear before the trial Court on or before 30th March, 2015, by way of indulgence, we defer the hearing of these applications till 27th March, 2015.
The interim relief granted while adjourning the anticipatory bail applications will not continue hereafter in view of the dismissal of anticipatory bail applications in terms of the order already pronounced. The Investigating Officer is free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
snb/-