GULAB SINGH KIRAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State counsel is under receipt of the case diary and investigating officer of the impugned crime Shri Vivek Lal, CSP, Purani Chhawni, Gwalior is also present in person.

(2.) Applicant's counsel Shri Ankur Maheshwari, after taking us through the application as well as the papers placed on record along with rejection order of the Sessions Court, by referring to the first information report said that by fabricating a false story, applicant and his son have been falsely implicated in the matter, while such son of the applicant secured admission in the alleged PG course on the basis of his qualification and ability. In addition, he said that he has not only secured admission in PG course, but he secured first rank in all over the State of Madhya Pradesh in Pre PG examination. In continuation, he said when impugned Crime No. 285/2014 was registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior on 16/6/2014, immediately on receiving such information of registration of the offences, applicant himself had given an application to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gwalior (Annexure A/3) on 19/7/2014 stating that he and his son are being falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime and they are ready to assist the investigating agency and to supply all necessary information and facts to the investigating officer. In spite of that, for a long period, applicant or his son was not called by the investigating agency. For the first time, the applicant was called on 22/6/2015, but in response to such call of the investigating officer, the applicant did not go and appear before such authority, because the investigating agency after declaring the applicant to be an absconder declared a cash reward for his arrest. He further said that his son Shakti Pratap Singh got admission in PG course after passing competitive examination of Pre PG and had successfully passed out MD (Radio Diagnosis) in first attempt. In support of such contention, he has referred to Annexure A/4 annexed with this application. He said that in such premises, it could not be deemed that by managing illegal affairs or adopting some process contrary to the established system, son of the applicant with the assistance of the applicant had secured admission in PG course. He also said that in the investigation, wrong allegation has been made against Shakti Pratap Singh, son of the applicant that he had earlier passed out BDS examination from other University out of State of Madhya Pradesh for which no material is available with the investigating officer in the case diary and in this regard, no efforts have been made by such agency. He further said that aforesaid son of the applicant passed out his MBBS from Karnataka and on the basis of such qualification he appeared in the Pre PG competitive examination and passed it out on the basis of his own labour. So, he said that on the basis of aforesaid premises the entire case of the investigating agency is prima facie false. In addition to it, the investigation of the police is based on the memorandum of the co -accused recorded u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act in which such accused have said something against the applicant and his son and such memorandum u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act could not be treated to be admissible evidence, unless the same is supported by any other evidence which is admissible under law. He also said that according to his information, in the available record of the case diary, there is not a single document on the basis of which it could be said that the same has been fabricated with dishonest intention by the applicant or his son and lastly he stated that in any case, considering the age of the applicant to be 73 years and he being suffering from old age diseases, by adopting a lenient view he be extended benefit of anticipatory bail by allowing this application. In support of such contention, he also placed reliance on the medical papers placed on the record.

(3.) Responding the aforesaid, Shri Prabal Solanki, GA with the assistance of the case diary as well as the investigating officer of the impugned crime argued that mere perusal of the evidence and the other documents collected during investigation till today in the case diary, there are prima facie circumstances against the applicant and his aforesaid son Shakti Pratap Singh for committing the alleged offences. By referring to the first information report, he said that the same has been registered against various accused in which name of the applicant and his son have also been stated along with their committed offending acts. So in view of such prima facie circumstances it could not be said that the applicant has not committed any alleged serious cognizable offences. In continuation, he said that in the preliminary investigation which had been carried out in absence of the applicant and his son, in spite making efforts, they could not have not been arrested till today. He further said that it has been established that the applicant and his son by involving themselves with the racketeers and the middlemen named in the FIR secured admission of son Shakti Pratap Singh in PG course by fabricating false and forged documents regarding result of competitive examination of Pre PG, and the same had been secured in consideration of money in lakhs for which sufficient evidence is available in the case diary. In addition, he said that subsequent to registration of the offences, when the investigation was being carried out, at the instance of the present applicant and some others, a petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court being MCRC 6596/2014; on consideration, vide order dated 6/8/2014 the same was dismissed by this Court and according to his information such order was not challenged before the Apex Court by the applicant or any other co -accused and in such premises, such order has got finality. In addition, he said that while passing the rejection order in the aforesaid petition of Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. it was observed that it is a fact that the applicant has not surrendered before the Police and he is still absconding. In such premises, he said that according to the observation of the Court, present applicant is required to carry out the investigation in the matter because custodial interrogation of the applicant as well as his son and other co -accused is necessary in the matter to verify certain material facts of the case which have come in the earlier investigation till today. He further said that it appears from the evidence collected by the investigating agency that son of the applicant with the assistance of the applicant, without appearing in the alleged competitive examination of Pre PG, only in consideration of money in lakhs secured admission in PG course. He further said that in spite of notice of the investigating agency dated 20/6/2015 the applicant did not appear before the investigating officer to assist him to carry out investigation. So in view of such conduct of the applicant, he does not deserve for extending benefit of anticipatory bail. He further said that by committing the aforesaid acts by the applicant and his son with the assistance of other co -accused, they have not only committed the alleged offences defined in the books, but by such activity of the applicant and his son who without appearing in such competitive examination had secured admission in PG course by securing first rank in all over the State of Madhya Pradesh, all those bona fide and genuine students, who, on the basis of their own labor and study appeared in the alleged competitive examination of Pre PG in accordance with the established procedure prescribed by VYAPAM, could not get success at their proper age to enter in the PG course of the concerning medical education. He further said that the till today, the investigating agency could not trace out the place or centre from which son of the present applicant had appeared in the competitive examination. In continuation, by referring to the memorandum of co -accused Gaurav Bhadoriya and Navin Sharma recorded under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, State counsel said that they being middlemen and part of racketeers, categorically said against the applicant and his son that in consideration of huge amount of Rs. 30 lakhs, admission of son of the applicant namely Shakti Pratap Singh in PG course was managed by them through some other racketeers. So in such premises, in order to verify such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant and his son is necessary and the same could be carried out only after making arrest of the applicant and not prior to that. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the application.