Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2016
MCRC-20289-2015
(AJAY KUMAR SEN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
21-06-2016
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Gaurav
Tiwari, for the applicant.
Shri J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondent/State.
Shri P. Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.
This is the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.21/2013 registered by CBI Bhopal, for offences punishable under Sections 417,420, 467, 468, 471, 201 & 120-B of IPC and Section 3 (Gha)(1-2)/4 of M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam 1937 and Section 13(1), 13(2)/4 PC Act and Section 65, 66 of IT Act.
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the applicant is in custody since 16.7.2013. It is about three years that he is in custody. The applicant has been apprehended only on the basis of certain assumptions to the effect that he is responsible for having made certain markings in the MOR while working as System Analyst with the Professional Examination Board. He took us to the detailed charge sheet filed by the State STF on 23.12.2013, the distribution of work with regard to the examination in question, the supervisory duties allotted to the various officers of the Board, the supervision undertaken by them, the manner in which the boxes containing the MOR were sealed and opened and tried to demonstrate before us that the allegations against the petitioner with regard to the manipulation in MOR is not correct. He has referred to various procedure formulated by the Board to conduct the examination in question and indicate that allegations made against the petitioner is not correct.
On the contrary Shri J. K. Jain, learned Asstt. Solicitor General indicated that in his capacity as System Analyst in the Board petitioner had manipulated the record. We have considered the rival contentions in detail. However, during the course of hearing Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that now after the charge sheet was filed by the STF on 23.12.2013 and the investigation was taken over by the CBI, after orders were passed by the Supreme Court on 9.7.2015 and registration of FIR by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 30th July, 2015, there is no new material available to keep the petitioner in custody pending trial. He argues that on more than four occasions petitioner has been interrogated by the CBI and now after search and seizure on his house and after completing all the formalities for the investigation the CBI has not even filed the challan till date. He argues that now after a period of more than three years petitioner's further pre trial custody is not called for as there is no circumstances brought on record which warrants further custody of the petitioner in the matter pending trial. He argues that other co-accused persons like Vinod Bhandari, Dr. Sanjeev Shilpkar, Laxmikant Sharma, Tarun Kaushal and various other co- accused persons similarly situated have been granted bail on account of the fact that their pre trial custody now has been more than two years and even filing of challan has not been completed and trial has not even processed living alone framing of charges.
We have considered the rival contentions and we find that applicant has been in custody now for a period of three years, when the matter has been investigated by the STF investigation was completed and detailed charge sheet was filed on 23.12.2013. However, after orders were passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9.7.2015 and after the case was registered by the CBI on 30 th July, 2015, further interrogation of the petitioner has been undertaken onmore than four occasions. In a detailed progress report filed by the respondents on 6.4.2016 except for saying that investigation into the matter with regard to analysis of seized hard disk and various other aspects are in progress, nothing is brought to our notice as to why further pre trial custody of the petitioner is required. It is a cordinal principle of law that no person can be kept in prelonged custody, pending trial unless exonerating circumstances are available to show that custody of a person is required further for investigation or there are material to show that he would misuse the facility of bail that may be granted to him. It is a cordinal principle of law that pre trial bail is rule and its denial is exceptional. In this case because the investigation was concluded by STF and charge sheet filed. Initially bail was refused to other co-accused persons but after CBI had undertaken investigation for a period of one year and in the absence of their being any exonerating circumstances available on record to show that further pre trial of the accused persons are necessary in most of the cases pertaining to VYAPM scandal accused persons like Vinod Bhandari, Dr. Sanjeev Shilpkar, Laxmikant Sharma, Tarun Kaushal etc. have been released on bail by this Court on imposition of strict conditions.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, the application for bail of applicant is allowed and applicant Ajay Kumar Sen is granted bail on the following terms and conditions :
1. The applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) with two solvent local sureties or near blood relative sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance during the trial ;
2. The applicant shall surrender passport before the Trial Court. In case the applicant claims not to possess passport, he should file an affidavit to that effect before the Trial Court. The applicant should also furnish a copy of Aadhaar Card to I.O.;
3. Applicant shall not leave District of his residence without written permission of the Trial Court;
4. The applicant shall not temper with or destroy evidency in any form.
5. The applicant is further directed to ensure that he will not influence the investigation, cooperate in the investigation and also does not intimidate or threaten the witness.
6. The applicant shall appear in the office of CBI at 1100 hrs. on the First Monday of every month and on such other dates as may be directed.
7. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
8. Applicant shall furnish to CBI his present address(es), e-mail address and contact mobile and fixed line telephone number(s).
9. Applicant is directed to extend his full cooperation towards further investigation, if being conducted by the CBI. In case, any such complaint is received against the applicant after his release on bail, the respondents are free to seek cancellation of this bail application.
The bail application stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE