SUDHIR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. Both these applications are filed by the same person who has been named as accused in Crime No. 17/2013 as also 18/2013 registered with the STF Police Station, Bhopal, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(d), 1 and 2/4 of the M.P. Recognised Examination Act, 1937, which is commonly known as VYAPAM Scam cases.

(2.) The role of the applicant, as per the prosecution case, is that of having participated in the commission of offence as Racketeer. The magnitude of the offence has already been considered in the past in several other applications and including by the Trial Court in the order dated 26-6-2014, while dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant.

(3.) The offences were registered on 23-11-2013. Pursuant to registration of the said offence the applicant initially responded to the requisition sent by the Investigating Officer and appeared before him on 23-12-2013 and again on 13-3-2014. Obviously, since there was no clinching material available with the Investigating Officer at that time warranting arrest of the applicant, he was set free. However, thereafter, it has been noticed as is reinforced from the case diary that the beneficiaries were interrogated who revealed the involvement of the applicant and as a result of which the applicant was called upon to appear before the Investigating Officer on 3-4-2014. However, the applicant did not remain present nor has responded to the subsequent requisitions sent by the Investigating Officer from time to time. As a result, the Investigating Officer was left with no other option but to declare the applicant absconding on 14-6-2014 and also moved the Trial Court by way of application under Section 82 of the Code in Crime No. 18/2013. The Trial Court has directed the applicant to remain present in the Court before 20-7-2014. Instead of responding to the requisition of the Investigating Officer and appearing before the Trial Court, the applicant, in the first place, filed anticipatory bail application before the Trial Court, which came to be rejected on 26-6-2014 and which decision has been made subject matter of the present application besides praying for grant of anticipatory bail, filed on 28-6-2014.