Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Abhijeet Singh Pawar on 7 August, 2014
---1---
M.Cr.C. No.10679/2014
7.8.2014
Shri P. K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Shri
Prakash Gupta, panel lawyer for petitioner/State.
Shri Subhash Kumar Chaturvedi, counsel for the
respondent/accused.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The respondent has been named as accused in Crime No.17/2013 registered with S.T.F. Police Station, Bhopal for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3(d), 1 and 2/4 of the M.P. Recognised Examination Act, 1937, which is commonly known as VYAPAM Scam cases.
The role ascribed to the respondent/accused is that he is beneficiary. He had appeared in the Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander examination conducted by VYAPAM in the year 2012. His father, in conspiracy with the other middlemen and racketeers, facilitated the respondent/accused to commit unfair means during the examination to secure employment on the post of Sub Inspector.
The respondent/accused apprehending his arrest had applied for anticipatory bail which was granted on 24.2.2014. The learned Single Judge while granting anticipatory bail recorded the case against the respondent/accused that he had left OMR sheet blank and thereafter, paid huge amount to the mediators and various officers of P.E.B. and, therefore, blank OMR sheet was filled up by those officers, as a result of which the respondent/accused was declared selected. Learned Single Judge has adverted to the plea of the respondent/accused that his case was in parity with the case of
---2---
co-accused Jitendra Raghuvanshi who was granted anticipatory bail on 13.2.2014 in M.Cr.C. No.2092/2014.
By this application the Investigating Officer has prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent/accused on two grounds; firstly, that the order in question does not correctly deal with the merits of the case and more so, has not analysed the objection raised by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, the objection raised on behalf of the State has not been elaborated in the order passed by learned Single Judge. As regards the first ground we are afraid that it is not possible for us to sit in appeal of the order dated 24.2.2014 having been passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. It is only for administrative reasons the VYAPAM matters are now heard by the Division Bench of this Court. In once sense, being the coordinate Bench, we cannot sit in appeal over the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court.
Be that as it may, we are inclined to recall the anticipatory bail order granted in favour of the respondent/accused for the other reasons stated in the application filed by the prosecution. It is asserted in the application that by notice dated 7.6.2014, the respondent/accused was called upon to appear before the Investigating Officer on 14.6.2014. Thereafter, he was called upon to appear on 18.6.2014. However, the respondent/accused did not appear before the Investigating Officer on 18.6.2014 or even thereafter. In other words, the respondent/accused is not cooperating in the investigation of the case. The charge sheet against the respondent/accused is yet to be filed. The respondent/accused's father was working as Inspector in police department, who has also been named as accused in the same
---3---
crime, both as having facilitated his son (respondent/accused) to commit unfair means during the examination as also to act as middleman for other candidates to extend similar facility to them.
In response to the averments made in the application the reply affidavit filed merely relies on the medical certificate (Document No.2) which, at best, indicates that the respondent/accused was unwell and was suffering from jaundice and for that reason was advised rest. That certificate, however, does not indicate that the respondent/accused was completely bed ridden and was immobile or for that matter was unable to carry on any other activity. Further, the reply affidavit nowhere explains that what prevented the respondent/accused to appear on 18.6.2014 before the Investigating Officer, when he was aware that such appearance was to be made and more so, after 18.6.2014, 21.6.2014 and thereafter till date the respondent/accused has not reported to the Investigating Officer. Suffice it to note that the explanation offered by the respondent for non-reporting to the Investigating Officer is untenable and false to his knowledge.
Since the investigation is being delayed because of the non- cooperation of the applicant, keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and another - (2012) 12 SCC 180, we are inclined to allow this application and cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the applicant. We may usefully refer to the observation of the Apex Court in the case of CBI Vs. Anil Sharma reported in AIR 1997 SC 3806 in particular Paragraph No.6, which reads thus:-
"We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more
---4---
elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable 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 insulated by a pre-arrest bail during the time he 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 disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders".
Taking over all view of the matter, we allow this application and recall the order dated 24.2.2014. The Investigating Officer is free to arrest the respondent/accused forthwith in connection with Crime No.17/2013 and proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Application disposed of accordingly.
(A.M.Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
Anchal