RASHEED MASOOD Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.B. No. 10353/2014 in CRL.A. 1325/2013 Crl. M.B. No. 10352/2014 in CRL.A. 1326/2013 & Crl. M.B. No. 10349/2014 in CRL.A. 1329/2013

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant is bad in law as the prosecution failed to prove any involvement of the appellant in the admission of the students in Medical College. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the nominations were signed by the co-accused Gurdial Singh. Although it was alleged that it was done at the instance of the appellant, but no such evidence was brought on record. The appellant is 68 years of age and is suffering from various ailments which fact is apparent from his medical record submitted by the Jail Superintendent. It was further submitted that even the incriminating evidence was not put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence against him. Due to his medical condition, he was earlier granted interim bail which was never misused by him. As such, during pendency of appeal, the appellant be released on bail.

(3.) The application is opposed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Standing Counsel for CBI on the ground that the appellant was working as Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The appellant was interested in procuring admissions of three non-eligible candidates, namely, Adnan Masood, Sandeep Pawar and Sachidanand Dwivedi in preference to eligible candidates. Coaccused Adnan Msood is also a nephew of the appellant. In pursuance to conspiracy hatched by him with co-accused and by abusing his official position as Minster and Head of Department, Government of India by resorting to corrupt and dishonest means, he was able to obtain valuable things in the form of nomination letter for non-eligible candidates for admission in MBBS Course and the deserving students of State of Tripura were fraudulently denied of their due entitlement in the Medical/Dental College. As such, it was submitted that on merits, there is no ground for suspending the sentence of the appellant. As regards medical grounds, it was submitted that his illness is being taken care of by the Superintendent Jail.