Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Arugonda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 June, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C No. 27375/2021
Arvind Arugonda Vs. State of MP
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-06-2021
Shri Ankit Saxena , Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Praeep Singh, Counsel for the State.
Heard finally through Video Conferencing.
Case diary is available.
This is second application has been filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 24.02.2021 in connection
with Crime No. 28/2021 registered by Police Station Crime Branch
Distt. Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of
IPC.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that there is
nothing on record to show that the applicant is the owner/Director of
NeetCounselling.Com. The amount was taken by Co-accused Ms.
Vijeta Khandekar who has already been granted bail. Applicant is an
innocent person. It is further submitted that first bail application was
dismissed on the ground that investigation was pending, however, the
charge-sheet was already been filed. It is submitted by Counsel for
the applicant that applicant was not aware of the filing of charge-
sheet and incorrect statement was made by the State Counsel that the
investigation is pending, therefore, first bail application was rejected.
It is submitted that investigation is over and charge-sheet has already
been filed. It is further submitted that there was no website in the
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C No. 27375/2021
Arvind Arugonda Vs. State of MP
name and style of NeetCounselling.Com. Under these circumstance,
applicant may be granted bail.
Per contra, application is opposed by the State Counsel. It is
submitted by Shri Singh that applicant is Director/Owner
NeetCounselling.Com which was a fake company and was involved
in cheating innocent aspirants by assuring them admission in MBBS
Course. It is further submitted that the applicant has a criminal
history and two cases of similar in nature has been registered against
the applicant in Rewa and Banglore.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and Case diary is
perused.
So far as the contention of the Counsel for the applicant that
there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant is the
owner/Director of the NeetCounselling.Com is concerned, the said
argument is contrary to record. It is really surprising that although
applicant is in possession of charge-sheet, but still statement was
made that there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant is
Director/Owner of NeetCounselling.Com. The Cyber Crime police
had collected information with regard to the registration details of
web cite NeetCounselling.Com and in reply it was informed that the
registrant contact, administrative contact and technical contact were
in the name of the applicant and the registration details of Mobile
No. 9916761111 were also collected and it was found that the same
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C No. 27375/2021
Arvind Arugonda Vs. State of MP
was in the name of the applicant. Further at the time of registration of
fake website NeetCounselling.Com, the Mobile Number of
Registrant Contact, Administrative Contact and Technical Contact is
also 9916761111. Thus, it is clear that NeetCounselling.Com
website is registered and owned by the applicant.
Further, from the rented premises of the applicant, following
articles were seized:-
1.One Nokia Phone,
2. One Dell Lap Top,
3. One DVR of DT Plus Company,
4. Three Laptops of i Ball Company,
5. One Laptop of Acer Company,
6. Three Laptops of Dell Company,
7. One Laptop of Apple Company,
8. Five Mobile Phones of Nokia Company,
9. Four Mobile Phones of Samsung Company,
10.One I-Phone of Apple Company,
11.One Mobile of LG Company,
12.Two Mobiles of One Plus Company,
13.One ATM Card of Kotak Bank,
14.Two ATM Cards of ICICI Bank,
15.One ATM Card of HDFC Company,
16.One Cheque Book of ICICI Company, 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C No. 27375/2021 Arvind Arugonda Vs. State of MP
17.One Cheque Book of Kotak Company,
18.Driving Licence of the applicant,
19.Two Adhar Cards with different addresses,
20.Two Pan Cards of the applicant( The addresses given in the Driving Licence and Adhar Card are the same addresses which were given in the Registrant Contact, Administrative Contact and Technical Contact,
21.Another driving licence of the applicant,
22.Ten Gold Coins of Reliance Jewels Company worth Rs. 26,68,970/-,
23.One bill dated 14.1.2021, according to which one Gold Chain was purchased in the name of the applicant,
24. Cash amount of Rs. 26,300/- which was kept in Pass Port and
25.One Passport of the applicant.
It is really surprising that the applicant was having two Adhar Cards and Two Pan Cards with different PAN numbers. Under what conditions, and how the applicant could succeed to get two Adhar Cards with different addresses, and how, the applicant succeeded in getting two PAN Cards with different PAN numbers is to be explained by the applicant. But one thing is clear that the applicant was having multiple Adhar Cards and multiple PAN cards which is not legally permissible.
5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C No. 27375/2021 Arvind Arugonda Vs. State of MP Furthermore, in the bank account of NeetCounselling.Com more than Rupees Fifty Lacs were found to be deposited and the bank statement of NeetCounselling.Com indicates various bank transaction. Thus, it is clear that not only the applicant is the Owner/Director of the NeetCounselling.Com, but he is having two Adhar Cards of different addresses as well as two Pan Cards with different PAN numbers and huge amount in the bank account coupled with seizure of various laptops, mobiles, gold coins, etc from his rented residential premises, clearly indicates that the applicant is prima facie involved in cheating innocent persons. Furthermore, statements of witnesses namely, Ms. Sanjana Parihar, Hemant Sahu etc. clearly indicates that the applicant is the Director/Owner of the NeetCounselling.Com. Further, large number of Laptops, mobiles etc. were also seized from the office of NeetCounselling.Com.
So far as the case of Vijeta Khandekar is concerned, She was an employee in NeetCounselling.Com and therefore, it cannot be said that she is the main accused. Thus, the applicant would not get any help of the bail order of co-accused Vijeta Khandekar. In fact, the applicant is the main accused who has cheated various innocent aspirants by launching NeetCounselling.Com and by assuring them admission in MBBS Course.
Under these Circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail. 6
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C No. 27375/2021 Arvind Arugonda Vs. State of MP Application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge ar ABDUR RAHMAN 2021.06.11 15:18:05 +05'30'