DIXIT KANTIBHAI PATEL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.RC2212024E005/EO-III/ND of 2024 registered with CBI/EO-III/New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Ss. 120(B) r/s. 409, 420, 477(A), 511, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 7(a), 7(A), 8, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Learned senior counsel Mr. J.M. Panchal with learned advocate Mr. Rajvi Patel appearing for the applicant has submitted that in the present offence, the investigation is over and Charge-sheet is filed. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 29/6/2024 and since then the applicant is in custody. The period of more than 6 months has passed after the arrest of the present applicant. He has further submitted that after arrest of the present applicant in connection of the present offence, the Charge-sheet came to be filed against him and it was only on the day prior to filing of the Charge-sheet that the statement of one witness Vishnubhai Sharma came to be recorded by the Investigating Agency who had stated in his statement that he had contacted the present applicant for NEET Examination in the year 2023. The present offence pertains to NEET Examination in the year 2024. There is no reference whatsoever as regards the role of the applicant in the present offence pertaining to NEET Examination of 2024. He has further submitted that the witnesses on whose statement the prosecution seeks to rely had earlier given their statements before the Investigating Officer wherein there was no allegation worth the name in commission of offence against the present applicant and it was in their second statement that the applicant was attributed role in commission of the offence. The conduct on the part of the Investigating Agency in recording further statement of the witnesses amongst nothing but to fill the lacuna in the prosecution case. He has submitted that upon consideration of material available on record, there is no material indicating that the present applicant either having demanded or received any money from any parents or students. The other co-accused whose application has been dismissed by this Court stand altogether on different footing than the present applicant as certain amount in cash as well as blank cheques were found from their possession. Nothing of the sort has been recovered from the present applicant. He has, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. R. C. Kodekar appearing for the respondent CBI has opposed the present application, inter-alia, contending that the present applicant was a Chairman of the institute where the examinations for NEET were conducted. He has further submitted that it was large scale conspiracy hatched by the accused including the present applicant for commission of offence and as a part of the said conspiracy, the candidates who were to appear in the NEET Examination, were asked to mention their domicile to Gujarat and were also asked to show some address of Gujarat in their application form and they were further asked to choose Godhara as a centre for appearing in the examination in question and resultantly, those students were assigned the centre at Godhara for appearing in the examination and that too, in the institute of which the applicant was Chairman. The applicant was running two institutes out of which only one was situated in Panchmahal district while the other institute in Kheda District and despite the same, both the institutes were earmarked to be the centre for examination in Panchmahal district. The applicant herein also got the other co-accused appointed as Deputy Centre Superintendent for the said examination who had played pivotal role in commission of offence in question. He has further submitted that the material available on record indicates that the applicant herein was approached by the parents to several candidates and it was decided between them that the applicant would help them get good marks in the NEET Examination for which those parents / students were to pay amount of Rs.20.0025 Lakhs. Thus, there is strong a prima facie case against the present applicant for commission of offence in question. He has, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.