SHOBHARAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 358/2014 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. Petitioner's counsel after taking us through the petition as well as the annexed papers including the rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and on taking into consideration the evidence collected by the investigating agency till today in the case diary, the ingredient of any of the alleged offences is not made out against the petitioner. In continuation, he said that even otherwise, there is only allegation against the petitioner that he being father of the student Jitendra Tijoriya had given him Rs. 3 lakhs to manage the affairs for alleged admission and except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. In any case, aforesaid alleged act of the petitioner is not sufficient to draw any inference against him. So in the lack of any admissible evidence with respect of the alleged offence against the petitioner, in the available circumstances, he deserves for extending benefit of anticipatory bail. He further said that some of the accused relating to the impugned scam have already been extended such benefit of anticipatory bail by the Apex Court and in such premises, on the ground of parity, he also deserves for the same benefit and prayed to allow this petition.

(2.) ON the other hand, State counsel with the assistance of the case diary argued that the petitioner being father of the student Jitendra Tijoriya had given Rs. 3 lakhs to the racketeers Arun Kumar Gaurav, Mahesh Jatav and Gyanendra Singh through his aforesaid son to secure seat in medical course contrary to the established system of VYAPAM. During investigation, after making arrest of some of the accused, on their interrogation, prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences have been established against the petitioner. The racketeers of the impugned case Arun Kumar, Gaurav, Mahesh Jatav and Gyanendra Singh through whom the alleged illegal affairs were managed are still absconding and unless all the accused including the petitioner are arrested and their custodial interrogation is carried out, the investigation process of the case could not be properly completed. He further argued that there is sufficient evidence to show that aforesaid alleged sum given by the petitioner to arrange a solver to appear in the competitive examination at the place of his son to secure his admission in the medical course and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) SO far as question of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity is concerned, we are of the considered view that in view of available evidence in the case diary, the cases of persons who have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail are squarely distinguishable from the case of the present petitioner. Even otherwise, bail matters are always decided on the basis of collected evidence against the concerning accused. So in such premises, the argument for extending benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity is not helping the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we have not found any merit in the matter to allow this petition, hence, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.