AMIT SHARMA 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 petitioner as he is in custody since 11/9/2014 in connection with Crime No. 285/2014 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 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 the petitioner has been implicated in the matter by making false allegations only on the basis of memorandum of other co -accused recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act which could not be said to be a foundation to draw any inference against the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner did not act as a middleman or part of racketeers to secure admission of any of the alleged students in the medical course. He further said that initially FIR was registered on the basis of a report in writing of the Committee of the College against eight persons and subsequently, the petitioner and other co -accused have been implicated by preparing memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co -accused. In continuation, he said that in respect of the alleged allegations, no documentary evidence like OMR sheets or other papers have been placed with the charge sheet, so in the lack of it, no inference could be drawn against the petitioner. In any case, after filing charge sheet in the matter against the petitioner, there is no requirement to keep him in jail custody, even if supplementary investigation is being carried out against other co -accused in the matter. He also apprised us that with respect to the alleged illegal admission of students Rakesh Jain and Rahul Jain, he has been implicated in two different crime numbers which is not permissible under law, because as per settled proposition of law, an accused could not be prosecuted twice for one illegal act in two different cases. In support of such contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench in the matter of Raghuraj Pratap Singh v. State of MP, : 2006(I) MPHT 222 and said that although said judgment was not based on the sections of the impugned offence herein, but in any case, the principle laid down in that case is applicable to the present matter to consider the prayer of the petitioner to extend benefit of bail and prayed to allow this petition.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the case diary as well as charge sheet, and we have found sufficient prima facie circumstance against the petitioner to show his involvement in the alleged offence, whereby being a middleman and part of the racketeers of the alleged scam, he has not only broken the established system of VYAPAM for holding the PMT Examination, but by such act he has also deprived to those genuine and bona fide students, who appeared in the alleged examination on the basis of their own labour and study. As such due to the offending activity of the persons like the petitioner and other racketeers, such students could not succeed in getting admission in the medical course at their proper age to make their future, so, in such circumstances merely on account of filing the charge sheet against the petitioner he does not deserve for grant of bail. In any case, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench No. 1 at the Main Seat in the case of Sudhir Sharma v. State of MP, unless after holding supplementary investigation against all other co -accused of the impugned crime, the charge sheet or appropriate report in that regard are not submitted, the petitioner could not be released on bail.