Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maan Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2015
Author: U.C.Maheshwari
Bench: Sheel Nagu, U.C.Maheshwari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DB HON'BLE MR JUSTICE U.C.MAHESHWARI, &
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
MISC.CRI CASE NO.2042 of 2015
Maan Singh Yadav
-Vs-
State of MP
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order
(Passed on 17th day of April, 2015)
Per U.C.Maheshwari, J.
On behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.291/2014 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences of Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of IPC and sections 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examination Act.
2. Petitioner's counsel after taking us through the papers placed on record along with the rejection order of the Sessions Court so also the order dated 10/12/2014 passed by this Court in MCRC 11261/2014 (Dr.Sushil Gupta Vs. State of MP), (Annexure 3), argued that in fact the petitioner has not committed any alleged offence, but has been falsely implciated in the matter by fabricating false story. In continuation, he said that he was not involved in the admission process of his son Vishal in the alleged medical course. His son Vishal from the age of 10 years was residing with his elder Aunt (Tai) Shrimati Vidya Bai and she was 2 MCRC 2042/2015 looking after his all affairs including education and during that period she incurred entire expenses of admission of Vishal in the medical course. Said elder Aunt of Vishal was the Bhabhi of the present petitioner and she passed away one year ago. Petitioner's counsel said that in the aforesaid premises, it could not be inferred that any sum was given by the petitioner to his son Vishal to manage the illegal affairs to get admission in medical course. Subsequently, during his treatment of various diseases, he received information that on the basis of some memorandum of other persons recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, he has been implicated in the impugned crime alleging that he has involved himself in criminal conspiracy with middle men and racketeers to manage the affairs to secure seat for his son in the medical course, while the said story is apparently false and in any case, the evidence based on the memorandum of section 27 of the Evidence Act could not be a foundation to draw any inference against the petitioner for making his arrest. He further said that apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner is suffering from various diseases like heart disease and diabetics for which he is under treament. On earlier occasions he was admitted in different hospitals like JAH, Gwalior and GB Pant Hospitals, Delhi where his angiography and angiopalstry was also carried out . With these submissions, petitioner's counsel said that if benefit of anticipatory bail is not extended to the petitioner, then in that circumstance, he has to suffer a lot in respect of his reputation and physical health also and any unhappy incident may take place in his life. In support of such contentions, he placed reliance on the above referred order passed by this Court in the matter of Dr.Sushil Gupta (supra), extending benefit of anticipatory bail to the co-
3 MCRC 2042/2015accused of the similar crime so also the order dated 23/2/2015 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Cri.) 9889/2014 whereby some accused persons of the identical scam have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. With these submissions, he prayed to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by allowing this petition.
3. On the other hand, opposing the aforesaid prayer with the assistance of the case diary, State counsel submits that the petitioner being father of the student Vishal has managed the affairs in criminal conspiracy with one Deepak Yadav, who after obtaining Rs.six lakhs from the petitioner had managed the affairs to secure seat for his son in the medical course, through some solver, who appeared on behalf of the said son in the alleged competitive examination of PMT held by VYAPAM, and thereby the petitioner with the assistance of racketeer and middleman has committed very serious offence by which he has not only broken the law but also deprived those bonafide and genuine students who appeared in the alleged competitive examination on the basis of their own labour and study, but could not get success in getting admission in medical course at their proper age to make their career, because of the offending activities of the persons like the present petitioner and other middlemen and racketeers. He further said that supplementary investigation in the matter in respect of other co-accused of the case is still going on and as per the law settled by this Court in the case of Sudhir Sharma Vs. State of MP, unless after holding supplementary investigation against the other co-accused of the case, charge sheets are filed, the petitioner should not be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. State counsel placing reliance on Division Bench 4 MCRC 2042/2015 judgment of this Court in Sukhram Tagore Vs. State of MP (MCRC 595/2015 decided on 18/2/2015 at Gwalior), dismissing application of such petitioner filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the matter relating to the same scam,said that on filing a SLP by such petitioner before the Apex Court, viz SLP (Cri) 2403/2015, on consideration vide order dated 1/4/2015 same has been dismissed on the ground that :-
"We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
He also placed reliance on another order of the Apex Court dated 30/3/2015 passed in SLP (Cri.) 2479/2015 arising out of dismissal order of the petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Principal Seat of this Court, in which also in similar circumstances, such SLP has been dismissed. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Having heard counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the papers placed on record along with aforesaid orders as well as the rejection order of the Sessions Court. On such perusal, we have found sufficeient prima facie circumstance against the petitioner to show his involvement in the alleged offence whereby by providing money for admission of his son in the medical course in illegal manner, he has not only broken established system of VYAPAM to hold PMT Examination but by such act he also deprived those bona fide and genuine students who appeared in the alleged competitive examination on the basis of their own labour and study, but due to such offending activities of the persons like the petitioner and middlemen and racketeers like Deepak Yadav, could not succeed in getting admission 5 MCRC 2042/2015 in medical course at their proper age to make their future in the medical field. So in such premises, looking to the nature of the offence, we are not inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Such provisions have not been enacted for the pruposes of protecting the accused like the petitioner. Even otherwise, in view of the evidence collected by the investigating agency and available in the case diary, in order to verify the same, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and the same could be carried out only after making his arrest and not prior to that. So in such premises, the petitioner does not deserves for extending benefit of anticipatory bail.
6. So far as the case laws cited on behalf of the parties are concerned, in view of the above mentioned latest order of the Apex Court dated 1/4/2015 passed in SLP (Cri)n 2403/2015 (Sukhram Tagore Vs. State of MP), affirming the order dated 18/2/2015 passed in MCRC 595/2013 dismissing the application of the concerning petitioner filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C., so also in view of the order dated 30/3/2015 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Cri.) 2479/2015, referred to above, the other orders are not helping the petitioner.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, present petition of the petitioner being devoid of any merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(U.C.Maheshwari) (Sheel Nagu)
Judge Judge
ppg