MAAN SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.291/2014 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences of Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120 -B of IPC and sections 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examination Act.

(2.) PETITIONER 's counsel after taking us through the papers placed on record along with the rejection order of the Sessions Court so also the order dated 10/12/2014 passed by this Court in MCRC 11261/2014 (Dr.Sushil Gupta Vs. State of MP), (Annexure 3), argued that in fact the petitioner has not committed any alleged offence, but has been falsely implciated in the matter by fabricating false story. In continuation, he said that he was not involved in the admission process of his son Vishal in the alleged medical course. His son Vishal from the age of 10 years was residing with his elder Aunt (Tai) Shrimati Vidya Bai and she was looking after his all affairs including education and during that period she incurred entire expenses of admission of Vishal in the medical course. Said elder Aunt of Vishal was the Bhabhi of the present petitioner and she passed away one year ago. Petitioner's counsel said that in the aforesaid premises, it could not be inferred that any sum was given by the petitioner to his son Vishal to manage the illegal affairs to get admission in medical course. Subsequently, during his treatment of various diseases, he received information that on the basis of some memorandum of other persons recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, he has been implicated in the impugned crime alleging that he has involved himself in criminal conspiracy with middle men and racketeers to manage the affairs to secure seat for his son in the medical course, while the said story is apparently false and in any case, the evidence based on the memorandum of section 27 of the Evidence Act could not be a foundation to draw any inference against the petitioner for making his arrest. He further said that apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner is suffering from various diseases like heart disease and diabetics for which he is under treament. On earlier occasions he was admitted in different hospitals like JAH, Gwalior and GB Pant Hospitals, Delhi where his angiography and angiopalstry was also carried out . With these submissions, petitioner's counsel said that if benefit of anticipatory bail is not extended to the petitioner, then in that circumstance, he has to suffer a lot in respect of his reputation and physical health also and any unhappy incident may take place in his life. In support of such contentions, he placed reliance on the above referred order passed by this Court in the matter of Dr.Sushil Gupta , extending benefit of anticipatory bail to the co - accused of the similar crime so also the order dated 23/2/2015 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Cri.) 9889/2014 whereby some accused persons of the identical scam have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. With these submissions, he prayed to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by allowing this petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, opposing the aforesaid prayer with the assistance of the case diary, State counsel submits that the petitioner being father of the student Vishal has managed the affairs in criminal conspiracy with one Deepak Yadav, who after obtaining Rs.six lakhs from the petitioner had managed the affairs to secure seat for his son in the medical course, through some solver, who appeared on behalf of the said son in the alleged competitive examination of PMT held by VYAPAM, and thereby the petitioner with the assistance of racketeer and middleman has committed very serious offence by which he has not only broken the law but also deprived those bonafide and genuine students who appeared in the alleged competitive examination on the basis of their own labour and study, but could not get success in getting admission in medical course at their proper age to make their career, because of the offending activities of the persons like the present petitioner and other middlemen and racketeers. He further said that supplementary investigation in the matter in respect of other co -accused of the case is still going on and as per the law settled by this Court in the case of Sudhir Sharma Vs. State of MP, unless after holding supplementary investigation against the other co -accused of the case, charge sheets are filed, the petitioner should not be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.