S.N VIJAYWARGIYA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") is to an order dated 23.11.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned 15 th Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (CBI), Bhopal in Case No.ST/9500317/2014 wherein cognizance of the offence registered as Crime No.RC2172015A0025 has been taken and warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged an order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure A-2) whereby application for cancellation of warrant of arrest was declined.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that on 30.10.2013, an offence punishable under Sections 419 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ; Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections

(3.) -D (1) and (2) and 4 of the M.P. Recognised Examination Act, 1937 was registered as Crime No.12/2013 by the Special Task Force, Bhopal constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of irregularities committed in Pre-Medical Test-2012 (for short "PMT-2012") conducted by M.P. Professional Examination Board (for short "the VYAPAM"). 3. Later, the investigations were taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short "CBI"). The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 11.11.2017 (Annexure A-3) received by him on 21.11.2017 that a charge-sheet shall be filed on 23.11.2017 in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal. The charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 201 read with 120-B of IPC ; Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 43 read with 66 of the Information Technology Act , 2000; and Sections 3-D (1) and (2) and 4 of the M.P. Recognised Examination Act, 1937 was filed on 23.11.2017, but, since the petitioner did not appear on the said date, the learned Special Judge, issued non-bailable warrants. It is at that stage, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the non-bailable warrant, which stood declined. The petitioner also applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code, which also stands declined vide order passed on 23.11.2017 (Annexure A-19) in Bail Application No.4002/2017 (Dr. S.N. Vijaywargiya and another vs. State of M.P. Through CBI, Bhopal). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second application for grant of anticipatory bail, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure A-20) passed in Bail Application No.9604139/2017 (S.N. Vijaywargiya vs. CBI, Bhopal).