Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Pratap Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2015
M.Cr.C. No.3776/2015
1.4.2015
Mr. Vijay Pradap Verma, appears in person.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General and
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard Pairokar of the applicant. He claims to be the father of the applicant. We permitted him to address us as a special case as he urged that his son - Dharmendra Pratap Verma was busy in preparing for some final examination.
The applicant has been named as accused in connection with Crime No.539/2013 registered with Police Station - Rajendra Nagar, Indore - commonly known as VYAPAM Examination Scam cases - for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, Section 65/66 of the I.T. Act and Section 3 (D) 1, 2/4 of M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937.
The role ascribed to the applicant by the prosecution is that he acted as a scorer and committed unfair means during the examination conducted by VYAPAM to help one Roopal Saraf.
The argument of the applicant is that he is innocent and has no causal connection with the above named candidate or the middleman. He has been falsely implicated. Further, the applicant passed the examination, whereas the candidate Roopal Saraf admittedly failed in the same examination. In that case it is incomprehensible that the applicant has acted as scorer in the examination. These are the only points urged before us on behalf of the applicant.
The respondents on the other hand contend that the role of the applicant has been noticed from the strong circumstances which have emerged during the investigation of the crime, such as, high percentage of mismatch of right and wrong answers and more importantly the name of the applicant is found in the diary maintained by the racketeer Dr. Jagdish Sagar. Further, on pairing of roll numbers it has been noticed that the roll number of the applicant was rearranged/changed. According to the Investigating Officer, the applicant has not cooperated during the investigation. These are the strong circumstances for which custodial interrogation has become necessary.
Considering the above, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant keeping in mind the complexity of the investigation and seriousness of the offence, which, if proved, may end up in sentence up to life imprisonment. The efficacy of custodial interrogation has been re-stated by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806. In paragraph 6 the Supreme Court has observed, 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 of 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 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."
Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, this application is rejected.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe) Chief Justice Judge Anchal