DURGA SINGH MOURYA 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 27/12/2014 in connection with Crime No.449/2013 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 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 as 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 alleging that he by involving himself in the alleged criminal conspiracy to secure admission of his son Hemdutta Mourya gave Rs.3.00 lakhs to his son to manage illegal affairs to get admission in alleged medical course through some middleman and racketeer Gyansingh Jatav, since deceased, who on the basis of such consideration, some solver was arranged, who appeared at the place of the petitioner's son in the alleged competitive examination of the PMT held By VYAPAM while in fact, the petitioner was not involved in any manner in the alleged criminal 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, on request of his son if he has given any sum to him and he had utilized the same in alleged illegal admission, even then merely on that basis, it could not be inferred that the petitioner himself was involved in the alleged scam to get such examination by his son in the medical course in illegal manner. He further stated that after holding the investigation, the petitioner has already been charge sheeted and now his custody is not required in any further or supplementary investigation. The trial of the case will take very long time and till then, the petitioner should not be detained in jail by way of pre -trial punishment. He further stated that co -accused of the alleged scam, his aforesaid son Hemdutta Mourya has already been released on regular bail while alleged middleman Gyansingh Jatav had passed away long before.

(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 his involvement in the alleged offence to secure the admission of his son in the medical course, through illegal means. In continuation, he stated that the petitioner is the only person who motivated and supported his son by giving him Rs.3.00 lakhs to manage the affairs through middleman Gyansingh Jatav, since deceased, who arranged a solver who appeared at the place of his son in the alleged competitive examination of PMT held by VYAPAM and secured admission for such son by breaking the established system of examination. Such thing has come in the memorandum of the co -accused his son, as well as in the memorandum of the petitioner. In such premises, he has not only involved in conspiracy and committed the offences as defined in the books, but by such act, he has also deprived 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 or identical crime relating to the alleged scam enlarged on regular or anticipatory bail are squarely distinguishable in comparison to the case of the present petitioner because the petitioner is the main person who provided money to his son to manage the illegal affairs through middleman by breaking the established system of competitive examination of PMT. Thus, even after death of the co -accused Gyansingh Jatav and releasing the coaccused Hemdutta Mourya, the son of the petitioner, the petitioner could not be released on bail, especially, in view of the circumstances that the supplementary investigation of the crime to arrest the alleged solver, namely, Tarik Rashid R/o Azamgarh is being carried out and for that purpose, the team of investigation had gone to make his arrest, and if the petitioner is released on bail before completing such investigation, then certainly he may prejudice such supplementary investigation. He further stated that in view of the law laid down by Division Bench -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.