Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. On 26.06.2015, however, counsel for the applicant on instructions submitted that the applicant was not satisfied with the option offered on behalf of the STF. Instead, the applicant would invite decision of this Court on merits of the application. In view of this stand, we directed posting of the matter on 29.06.2015 for pronouncement of the order.

13. To complete the record, it needs to be mentioned that although the applicant was ordered to be kept in judicial custody in terms of direction given by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2015, the local newspaper "Patrika" published on 25.06.2015 mentioned with photograph in support - that the applicant was having a free time in Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. The news item further mentioned as to how the applicant interacted with several visitors and that the family members of the applicant were in attendance in the separate room allocated to the applicant in the said hospital. Further, no police personnel were seen any where nearby the said room in which the applicant was seen resting along with his family members in the hospital. When our attention was drawn to this news item and counsel for the applicant was asked as to in what circumstances the applicant was shifted to the hospital as reported by the newspaper, without prior permission or for that matter any intimation to this Court, the counsel submitted that the State must explain the same. In the context of this response, the counsel for the applicant was informed that the said issue will be taken up by the Court dealing with suo moto Writ Petition No.6385/2014 (PIL) concerning VYAPAM examination scam cases and the investigation whereof is under monitoring of this Court before the Bench (to which one of us A.M.Khanwilkar, Chief Justice is a party). That matter was scheduled for hearing after the lunch - break. Appropriate directions have been issued by the said Bench (A.M.Khanwilkar, Chief Justice and Alok Aradhe, Judge) to the Head of STF, Shri Sudhir Sahi to enquire into the said matter and submit his report in sealed cover before the next date of hearing on 02.07.2015.

14. Reverting to the grounds agitated in the original application as filed on 01.06.2015, the sum and substance is that the applicant is not involved in the commission of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated. In fact, STF had unequivocally denied about his involvement on affidavit dated 18.05.2015 filed in disposed of W.P.No.11695/2014 (PIL for transfer of investigation of VYAPAM related crimes to CBI). It is stated on affidavit that the applicant and his cousin nephew Dr. Prakhar Singhal had no role in the examination of Pre-P.G. That, the applicant has not been named as accused in the FIR or the charge-sheet filed by the STF till date. None of the co- accused in the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act have disclosed about the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged crime. The entire case against the applicant was based on the memorandum statement of Mr. Nitin Mohindra dated 30.10.2014; but he has not named the applicant nor his cousin nephew. That, his cousin nephew Dr. Prakhar Singhal has already been granted bail by the Supreme Court on 23.02.2015 S.L.P. (Cri.) 1020/2015. The allegation about any unfair means committed during the examination by his nephew is illogical and baseless, as he is a meritorious student having very good academic record. There was no evidence at all about the involvement of Dr. Prakhar Singhal in the commission of the alleged crime. The fact that Dr. Prakhar Singhal was regularly staying in the house of the applicant, it would not follow that applicant had facilitated Dr. Prakhar Singhal in commission of the alleged offence. Similarly, mere acquaintance of the applicant with Nitin Mohindra cannot be the basis to assume that the applicant, succeeded in getting admission for his cousin nephew in Medical course by conspiring with the racketeers in any manner. The applicant and other residents of their colony was in contact with Nitin Mohindra and Bharat Mishra in connection with maintenance issues in their colony. The allegation against the applicant that he had telephonic conversation with Nitin Mohindra, a day prior to the examination of Dr. Prakhar Singhal, was not based on any call details but sheer speculation - that the applicant "may" have procured the model answer key from the racketeers. Mere telephone calls between them, in any case, would not be an incriminatory circumstance to proceed. The prosecution, inspite of rejection of anticipatory bail application of the applicant, unfairly initiated action against the applicant under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The applicant had raised concerns in that behalf in the proceedings questioning the said process. The Supreme Court though refused to interfere has made it clear that the regular bail application be decided on merits, but the Trial Court shockingly rejected the prayer for grant of regular bail. The STF having denied the involvement of applicant on affidavit filed on 18.09.2014 in disposed of Writ Petition No.11695/2014, cannot now proceed against the applicant. Further, the Trial Court committed palpable error in observing that if any person is accused of cognizable offence and is arrested in that behalf the police can interrogate him for 24 hours and in the present case, the police did not have that opportunity of custodial interrogation. According to the applicant, custodial interrogation must be resorted to only in exceptional cases when the person accused is so influential that he cannot be interrogated by the investigating agency without his custody. The applicant, however, is a small time businessman with fair reputation. The prosecution without any rhyme or reason wants to arrest the applicant only to cause his social death and infringe his right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The applicant had appeared before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so in the past, but no question relating to the offence was asked to the applicant. The applicant was merely asked about general information like PAN card, Passport details, Bank A/c details, income-tax return and his family. According to the applicant, the prosecution is insisting for custodial interrogation to explain details regarding a computer entry - which query was never put to the applicant, though he was interrogated on five times in the past by STF.

23. Notwithstanding this affidavit filed by the respondents, the applicant has not filed any rejoinder to controvert the stand taken by the respondents or to offer further explanation but chose to proceed with the arguments on the bail application.

24. During the arguments, counsel for the applicant has relied on the averments made in the applications and affidavits filed by the applicant to contend that the applicant had no knowledge about the events till recently. The applicant started doubting about the proximity between the Investigating Officer, D.S.Baghel and Dr.Ajay Goenka after 3rd June, 2015 as the Investigating Officer had disclosed certain facts in the objection filed by him to oppose the bail application filed by the applicant before the Trial Court, which fact was within the exclusive knowledge of Dr.Ajay Goenka. The whole attempt of the counsel for the applicant was to persuade the Court to hold that there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the applicant that the Investigating Officer D.S.Baghel will not act fairly. Emphasis was placed on the stand taken by the STF on affidavit on 18.09.2014 filed to oppose the disposed of Writ Petition 11695/2014 (PIL), which according to the applicant, gives clean chit to the applicant. It was submitted that it is cardinal principle that the investigation must be done by the Investigating Agency in a free and fair manner; and if there was even slightest of apprehension and the circumstances spelt out by the applicant were sufficient to arouse such apprehension, it must necessarily follow that the applicant has been falsely implicated in Crime No.14/2013 out of vengeance and to further the cause of Dr.Ajay Goenka.

27. Presumably, realizing this position, the applicant has advisedly taken a plea that the applicant is being persecuted by the Investigating Officer, D.S. Baghel at the behest of Dr. Ajay Goenka, who is in close proximity with the Investigating Officer and is accused in Crime No.12/2013 registered at the instance of the applicant. Notably, in the regular bail application filed by the applicant on 1.6.2015 this specific plea has not been taken by the applicant. The averments in the bail application, however, inter alia, rest on the assertion that there is no tangible material to proceed against the applicant and which fact has been stated on affidavit filed on behalf of STF to oppose the disposed of W.P. No.11695/2014 (PIL praying for transfer of investigation of all VYAPAM related Scam Cases to CBI).