BRAHMA SINGH SAINANI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on merits of this petition.

(2.) THE same is filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 138/2013 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Madhya Pradesh Manyata Prapta Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1947.

(3.) APPLICANT 's counsel after taking us through the petition as well as the papers placed on the record alongwith the impugned rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that the applicant has been implicated in the matter on account of the alleged illegal admission of his son in the medical courses through competitive examination of the PMT held by the VYAPAM in the year 2009. In continuance, he said that as per the allegation, in order to secure the seat in the aforesaid course, the applicant has provided the alleged sum to his son and involved himself in the alleged criminal conspiracy with the racketeer namely Vijay Nargish through his own son Vikash Sainani and in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, at the instance of the applicant such son has paid the alleged sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ - to such racketeers and on the basis of such consideration, such son without appearing in the competitive examination, has secured such admission through some solver who has appeared on his behalf in the alleged competitive examination. He further said that on taking into consideration the evidence collected by the investigating agency till today in the matter, it is apparent that the applicant is being involved in the matter only on the basis of the memorandum of his son/co -accused Vikash Sainani as well as of other arrested co -accused racketeer Vijay Nargish recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and there is no any other evidence in the case diary, on which the inference regarding involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence could be drawn. In the background of this submission, he said that there is no prima facie circumstances against the applicant for committing the alleged offence. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance on the decided case of the Apex Court in the matter of Kehar Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.) - : AIR 1988 SC 1883. In continuance, he has also said that the co -accused of the impugned crime namely Mahipal Singh situated in the similar circumstances in the case has already been extended the benefit of the anticipatory bail by the Apex Court, so in view of the principle of parity in the light of such order of Mahipal Singh Yadav, the applicant is also entitled to extend the same benefit and prayed to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant by allowing this petition.