Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin Goel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2015
1
M.Cr.C. No.8811 of 2015.
18.6.2015
Shri Anil Khare, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General, with
Shri Prakash Gupta, Advocate for the respondent/State.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant in connection with Crime No.14/2013 registered with STF Police Station, Bhopal - commonly known as VYAPAM Examination Scam cases - for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 120-B of IPC and Section 3 (Gha) 1, 2/4 of M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937.
2- Applicant had filed anticipatory bail application after the trial Court had initiated action against the applicant u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C. Besides applying for anticipatory bail, the applicant had also questioned the validity of the order passed by the trial Court u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C. Both the applications were rejected by the trial Court at the first instance and then by this Court.
3- Admittedly, the applicant carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected both these Special Leave Petitions. What is relevant to notice is that the Supreme Court in its order dated 30.3.2015, while dismissing the SLPs (Cr.) No.2479/2015 and 2480/2015 observed as follows :
"Upon reading the order of the High 2 Court we find that according to the Investigating Agency custodial interrogation is required having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances in which the offences are alleged to have been committed. The High Court has also recorded a finding that the petitioners have not cooperated with the process of investigation uptill now. In such circumstances, we decline to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The mere fact that the other persons involved in the VYAPAM scam have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail will not be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
The facts of each case will have to be considered and it is in the light of the said facts that we have thought it proper to dismiss both these special leave petitions. It is ordered accordingly."
(emphasis supplied) 4- On a bare reading of this observation, it is amply clear that the Supreme Court has affirmed the opinion of this Court that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary and must be permitted. The applicant had resorted to second round of SLPs against the subsequent proceeding challenging the order passed by this Court on 24.4.2015 in M.Cr.C. No.3837/2015, dated 5.5.2015 in M.Cr.C. No.6927/2015, being SLP (Criminal) No.4342- 3 4343/2015 and SLP (Criminal) No.4351/2015 along with SLP (Criminal) No.9889/2014 and 3775/2015. The said proceedings were disposed of by another order dated 19.5.2015, which reads thus :-
"SLP (CRL.) Nos.4342-4343/2015 On the facts of this case, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Since by the impugned order, the High Court has refused to set aside the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Magistrate, the proper course of action for the petitioner is to approach the Magistrate with appropriate application. It is stated that such an application shall be filed within two weeks. The petitioner shall not be arrested for two weeks. Subject to the above, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. However, we make it clear that whenever such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate on its own merits and without being influenced by the order of the High Court in the impugned order. On the petitioner's filing the bail application, the same shall also be considered expeditiously.SLP(CRL.) No.4351/2015
After some arguments, Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel, seeks permission to withdraw this special leave petition with liberty to apply for regular bail.
Liberty, as aforesaid, granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn, accordingly."
(emphasis supplied) 4 5- From the above said two orders passed by the Supreme Court, it is not open for the applicant to contend that the applicant cannot be subjected to arrest and custodial interrogation.
6- The applicant, however, has filed this application for bail. During the hearing, the applicant has filed/tendered additional affidavit in support of the relief claimed in the present application, filed on 1.6.2015. In the original application, no disclosure has been made that the applicant had no knowledge about the facts stated in the affidavits dated 14.6.2015 and 17.6.2015 until the filing of the bail application on 1.6.2015. It is noticed that as the case is progressing, the applicant comes with fresh affidavits raising new pleas and facts attributing mala fides against the Investigating Officer. In further affidavit filed on 14.6.2015, one of the circumstance to buttress the grievance noted by the applicant is that for inexplicable reasons the Investigating Officer in his objection filed before the Trial Court on 29.5.2015 has adverted to First Information Report registered against the applicant at the instance of one Goenka without disclosing the fact that the said First Information Report was already stayed by the Supreme Court on 15.4.2015. In further affidavit filed on 17.6.2015, the applicant has adverted to several telephonic calls exchanged between the Investigating Officer - D.S. Baghel and said Ajay Goenka at whose instance, according to the 5 applicant, the applicant has been falsely implicated in Crime No.14/2013.
7- As aforesaid, new case has been made out by the applicant in the further affidavits filed during the course of hearing, which we have allowed the applicant to bring on record, in the interest of justice.
8- In the context of the plea taken in the two successive affidavits filed by applicant referred to above, the question arises as to whether the applicant had knowledge about these facts referred to in the said affidavits even before 19.5.2015. If yes, whether the applicant can be permitted to rely on those facts and grounds in support of the present application notwithstanding the finding recorded by the Supreme Court in its orders whilst dismissing the SLPs filed by the applicant. The second question would be whether the facts so stated on affidavits by the applicant are authentic and, if so, whether that would reflect on the bona fide of the Investigating Officer investigating Crime No.14/2013.
9- These are the questions, which can be answered only after giving fair opportunity to the prosecution and the concerned Investigating Officer. The facts so stated on affidavits cannot be accepted as gospel truth and will have to be inquired into, to answer the controversy. For that, the matter will have to be deferred for some time.
10- In that case, the next question that arises is about the 6 custody of the applicant, who has surrendered before us today, which was made condition precedent for hearing the prayer for grant of bail, in terms of our order dated 16.6.2015. As the applicant has surrendered before the Court, we direct the respondent/State to keep the applicant in judicial custody at Jabalpur until further orders and hearing of this application forthwith.
11- The respondents are free to file response to the aforesaid two affidavits filed by the applicant, which are taken on record and served on the counsel for the State during the course of hearing.
12- We defer the hearing of this matter till 23.6.2015. The applicant shall remain in judicial custody till further orders. He may be produced in Court, if the Court so directs on the next date.
13- Shri Manbharan Prajapati, C.S.P., Gorakhpur and Shri Harish Dubey, T.I. present in Court, who are assisting the learned counsel for the State in the present case, are directed to take the applicant in custody forthwith and place him in judicial custody at Jabalpur. Necessary formalities in that behalf be completed by these two Police Officers in terms of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (K.K. Trivedi) Khan* Chief Justice Judge