SHRINIWAS TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) THE applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 153/2015 registered at Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the IPc and Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) LEARNED Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant was the Speaker of Legislative Assembly of State of M.P. during the year 1993 -2003. He has no direct involvement in the alleged offence. He did not appoint any person illegally. All appointments were made according to the Rules. None of the appointments was wrongly made by the applicant. It is further submitted that the son of the applicant is a sitting MLA of the huge constituency of District Rewa, he was instrumental in raising the issues regarding corruption in the VYAPAM scam against the Chief Minister of State of M.P., therefore, with a revengeful attitude, Secretariat of Legislative Assembly made false report against the applicant and other co -accused persons, which is highly belated. It is further submitted that a number of writ petitions were filed by different petitioners in the form of Public Interest Litigation wherein complainant Secretariat, Legislative Assembly, M.P. took the stand that there is illegality in the appointments in the Secretariat during the period 1993 -2003 and all the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court, therefore, now they cannot say that the appointments were made illegally. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is 89 years old person, he is 100% blind and is suffering with various ailments. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the applicant has filed medical certificate issued by Dr. P.C. Dwivedi, registered practitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the report has been lodged on the basis of report of the Commission headed by Justice Dwivedi and the case has been registered belatedly after more than 20 years of the first incident. It is further submitted that the then Advocate General had opined that the Secretariat of M.P. Legislative Assembly is an independent authority and Government of M.P. has no control over it, therefore, Justice Dwivedi could not be appointed as enquiry Commissioner under The Commission of Enquiry Act. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others - : AIR 1994 SC 1349 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others - : (2011) 1 SCC 694.