Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.4763/2019
(Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola Vs. State of M.P. & another)
Gwalior, Dated:-20.03.2019
Mr. Brajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. F.A. Shah, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/CBI. This is an application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.500/2012 for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467/511, 468, 471/511, 120 B IPC and under Section 3(D)/4 Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act 1937. The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant played the role of middleman for arranging solver in favour of Gaurav Singh S/o Jitendra Singh in a Police Constable Recruitment Examination 2012.
The instant case pertains to impersonation in PCRT-2012 examination. The allegation in brief is that the accused candidate entered into a criminal conspiracy with the middlemen and impersonator and as a result, the impersonator appeared in the examination in place of the original candidate.
Record reveals that the case was registered by the Police Station Janakganj on a complaint received from Shri S.C. Tripathi, the then the Centre Superintendent of examination Centre Laxamibai Smarak Higher Secondary School, Lashkar Gwalior in respect of serving post 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.4763/2019 (Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola Vs. State of M.P. & another) of Police Constable though impersonation in Police Constable Recruitment Test 2012 held on 30.09.2012. FIR vide Crime No.590/2012 was registered on 30.09.2012 against Gaurav Singh S/o Jitendra Singh initially under Sections 419, 420, 176 IPC and Section 3 of Act 1937. That during investigation by the Local Police, the candidate, the middleman and the impersonator could not be traced. The Local Police did not file any charge-sheet.
The investigation thereafter were transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation by virtue of order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.372/2015. The present case was registered by the CBI on 16.12.2015 under Section 120 B, 419, 420, 176 IPC and Section 3 of 1937 Act against Gaurav Singh and unknown accused persons vide Crime No.RC 2172015S0136.
After completion of investigation the CBI filed charge-sheet on 19.01.2017 against from accused person, viz Gaurav Singh, beneficiary, Yogesh Kumar, impersonator and Lalitesh Kumar and Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola under Sections 120 B, 419, 420, 467/511, 468, 471/511 and under Section 3(D)/4 of Act 1937.
The applicant did not appear on 19.01.2017 which led to issuance of non-bailable warrants. It was after about 2 years the applicant surrendered before the trial Court whereon he was sent to judicial custody.
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.4763/2019 (Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola Vs. State of M.P. & another) As per the CBI the role played by the present applicant in commission of the crime is that of middleman; the CBI relies on following facts on record which as per their submission completes the chain :
"(i) The candidate Gaurav Singh filed his application form for PCRT 2012 through online from a KIOSK, namely Goyel Computer Centre, Raya, Mathura on 30.08.2012. On the basis of the said application, a Test Admit Card was issued by Vyapam vide Roll No:265799. The centre of examination was at Laxmi Bai Smarak, Higher Secondary School, Lashkar, Gwalior.
(ii) The accused candidate wanted to get pass in the written exam of the PCRT-2012 conducted on 30.09.2012 fraudulently with help of accused middleman and impersonator. For the above purpose, a conspiracy was hatched by the accused candidate with the impersonator Yogesh Kumar and with the middlemen Lalitesh Kumar and Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola.
(iii) One suspicious person appeared in the written exam of the PCRT-2012 vide Roll No:265799 at Laxmi Bai Smarak, Higher Secondary School, Lashkar, Gwalior on 30.09.2012. The suspicious person was brought to the Principal's Office, from where he went to toilet and fled.
(iv) None of the accused persons was traced by Local Police, so no chargesheet was filed in the instant case. Meanwhile, the case was transferred to CBI by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
During CBI investigation, the accused candidate, the accused impersonator, the accused middlemen was identified, traced and made to join investigation.
(v) During the course of investigation conducted 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.4763/2019 (Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola Vs. State of M.P. & another) by CBI, Specimen Hand Writings and signatures of the accused candidate Gaurav Singh and the impersonator Yogesh Kumar were collected and were sent to CFSL for comparison with questioned handwritings and signature on the OMR answer sheet of the accused candidate Gaurav Singh. Expert has opined that the candidate Gaurav Singh did not write questioned handwritings and signature, but the impersonator Yogesh Kumar wrote the questioned handwritings and signature. Therefore, it is clearly established that Yogesh Kumar appeared in the PCRT-2012 examination in place of the candidate Gaurav Singh.
(vi) A another CFSL expert report established that the questioned writings, in the visitors Entry Register of Hotel Park View, Gwalior is attributed to the middleman Lalitesh Kumar and the impersonator Yogesh Kumar. Mobile Number provided in the Hotel Visitor Register belongs to the impersonator Yogesh Kumar, which is conclusively proof of stay of the said accused middleman and impersonator in the same room and conspiracy among them.
(vii) CFSL Expert report opined that the questioned handwriting on bank deposit slip is attributed to Lalitesh Kumar who is also a middleman in this chain of criminal conspiracy. It is revealed that 5 days prior to the said examination, Lalitesh had deposited the tainted money of Rs.20,000/- in the bank account of Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola. Therefore, it is proved that the accused middleman Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola received illegal monetary benefit towards his part in the criminal conspiracy of impersonation on behalf of the candidate Gaurav Singh."
It is further contended that the charge-sheet has been filed against the said accused petitioner. So, it is highly possibilities that the 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.4763/2019 (Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola Vs. State of M.P. & another) accused petitioner may make inducement/threat or promise to the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing true facts of the case and temper the evidences of the case to disable the emergence of the truth. There is also a likelihood of his fleeing from justice, if enlarged on bail.
The applicant submits that he is falsely implicated and that the co-accused are released on bail. And the applicant is ready to abide by all terms and conditions laid down by this Court.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the cogent material on record. True it is that accused Gaurav Singh and Yogesh Kumar were admitted to an anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench on 15.03.2017 and 16.10.2017. However, the case of the applicant is different. The applicant remained absconded for so many years which has led to prolongation of the matter since 2012. The case being based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is also entitled for a fair trial. The nature of offence; the magnituded whereof has led Hon'ble Supreme Court to transfer investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and was only after the said transfer and further investigation which could lead to unearth the organized manner in which the crime has been committed. The role ascribed to the applicant is that of middleman who, as the story reveals, was arranging the solvers for the beneficiaries. Since there are events of 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.4763/2019 (Vishnu Kumar @ Bhola Vs. State of M.P. & another) circumstances knit by the CBI which does not rule out the possibility as to the apprehension by the CBI as to tinkering and influencing the evidence. We are not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Consequently, application fails and is dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
bj/-
BARKHA
JHA
2019.03.2
5 17:16:00
-07'00'