POORAN SINGH JATAV Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicant as he is in custody since 18/10/2014 in connection with Crime No.449/2013 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 201, 120 -B of IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of the MP Recognised Examination Act.

(2.) PETITIONER 's counsel after taking us through the papers placed on record along with the impugned rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that on taking into consideration the entire papers of the charge sheet and are accepted in their entirety at this stage, even then, any of the alleged offence is not made out against the petitioner. Petitioner has been implicated in the matter by fabricating a false story that he by involving himself in the alleged criminal conspiracy to secure admission of his son Nikesh Yadeav gave Rs.4.50 lakhs to his son to manage illegal affairs to get admission in medical course through some middleman and racketeer Hitendra Singh Yadav and on the basis of such consideration, some solver to appear at the place of the petitioner's son in the alleged competitive examination of PMT held by the VYAPAM was managed by the above mentioned Hitendra Singh Yadav, while in fact, the petitioner has not involved himself in any manner in the alleged conspiracy with his son or the aforesaid middleman. Even a solver was also not arranged in the knowledge of the petitioner and such sum was also not given by the petitioner to his son to manage admission in the medical course in illegal manner. He further stated that in any case, if for admission of his son any sum was given by the petitioner to such son, then merely on that basis it could not be inferred that the petitioner himself was involved in the alleged scam to get admission of his son in the medical course in illegal manner. He further stated that after holding the investigation, the petitioner has been finally charge sheeted and his custody is not required in the matter. The Trial will take very long time and the petitioner should not be detained in jail by way of pre trial punishment. He further stated that co -accused of the alleged scam namely Dr.Sarita Sharma has been extended benefit of anticipatory bail, so in such premises, the petitioner deserves for extending the benefit of regular bail and prayed to allow this petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, responding to the aforesaid arguments with the assistance of the case diary, State counsel argued that in view of the available evidence in the case diary as well as in the charge sheet filed against the petitioner, there are prima facie evidence to show involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence to secure admission of his son in the medical course, through illegal means. In continuation, he stated that the petitioner is the only person who motivated his son by giving Rs.4.50 lakhs to manage the affairs through middleman Hitendra Singh Yadav who arranged a solver and secured his admission by breaking the established system of competitive examination of PMT held by VYAPAM. Such thing has also come in the memorandum of the co -accused as well as of the petitioner. In such circumstances, he has not only committed the offences defined in the books, but by such act, he has deprived all those bona fide and genuine students who appeared in such competitive examination of PMT on the basis of their own labour and study, but due to illegal selection of the person like son of the petitioner and the activities of the alleged racketeers and middlemen, could not get admission in medical course at their proper age to make their future in medical field. He further stated that the cases of the co -accused persons of the impugned crime who have been enlarged on anticipatory bail or otherwise are squarely distinguishable in comparison to the case of the present petitioner because petitioner is the only person who provided money to his son to manage the illegal affairs to break the established system of VYAPAM to carry out competitive examination of PMT. In such premises, petitioner has committed very serious offence. He further stated that supplementary investigation is being carried out by the investigating agency and if the petitioner is released on bail, then certainly he may prejudice such supplementary investigation. He further stated that while supplementary investigation against the co -accused is being carried out in the matter, in view of the law laid down by Division Bench No.I of the Principal Seat of this Court in the matter of Sudhir Sharma Vs. State of MP, unless after carrying out supplementary investigation of the impugned crime against all the concerning accused and charge sheets are filed, the petitioner should not be released on regular bail, otherwise, by his activities, he may prejudice the supplementary investigation of the case and prayed for dismissal of this petition.