LAWS(MPH)-2015-6-15

VIPIN GOEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On June 29, 2015
Vipin Goel Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is first bail application by this applicant in Crime No.14/2013 registered with S.T.F. Police Station, Bhopal for offences commonly known as VYAPAM examination scam cases, punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3 (Gha), 1, 2/5 of M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937.

(2.) The role ascribed to the applicant by the prosecution is that he acted as middleman to facilitate candidate (Dr. Prakhar Singhal). That candidate had appeared in the examination conducted by VYAPAM for Pre.P.G. Medical Course and allegedly indulged in unfair means during the said examination, in conspiracy with the racketeers involved in the crime. The applicant was called upon by the Investigating Officer vide notice dated 26.11.2014, to remain present in connection with enquiry concerning Crime No.14/2013. According to the applicant, in response to the said notice, applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer and extended full cooperation in the enquiry and disclosed all facts within his knowledge. The applicant was questioned extensively by the Investigating Officer. It is further stated that since the Investigating Officer was convinced with the explanation and the disclosures made by the applicant, no precipitative action was taken against him. However, when the applicant apprehended that he may be arrested in connection with the said crime, applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. That anticipatory bail was rejected on 11.02.2015.

(3.) The applicant then rushed to the High Court against that decision by way of bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being M.Cr.C.No.3440/2015. That application was rejected by a speaking order dated 24.03.2015. The Court accepted the argument of the prosecution that the applicant was not cooperating in the enquiry and that the Investigating Officer was convinced that the custodial interrogation of the applicant had become necessary. The Court observed thus :-