Download Report

(1)
MCRC NO.2258/2015, MCRC No.2261/2015,
MCRC No.3164/2015 & MCRC No.3165/2015,
MCRC No.3158/2015, MCRC NO.3161/2015,
MCRC No.3171/2015 & MCRC No.3173/2015
27.02.2015
Shri Ishtiyaq Ali, Advocate for the applicant in all
the applications.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General
with Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent-State.
Heard counsel for the parties.
MCRC NO.2258/2015
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by
the applicant who is suspect in Crime No.539/2013
registered at Police Station STF, Bhopal - commonly
known as VYAPAM Examination Scam Cases for the
offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, section 65, 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and section 3(d)1,
2/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937.
The role ascribed to the applicant by the
prosecution in the commission of the said offence is of
having acted as a Scorer in conspiracy with Racketeer –
Sudhir Rai and appeared in the examination conducted
(2)
by VYAPAM in which he assisted another candidate
appearing in the same examination. It is stated that the
involvement of applicant has been traced on the basis of
material recovered from Sudhir Rai by the Investigating
Officer during the investigation. Sudhir Rai is one of
the racketeer in the said scam cases involving more than
2000 accused involved in different examinations.
The anticipatory bail application of similarly
placed persons who hail from Uttar Pradesh and
appeared for examination at Indore by giving wrong
and misleading residential address in conspiracy with
the racketeer and the middleman have been considered
yesterday in M.Cr.C. No.2234/2015 and companion
cases. Similar modus operandi is noticed in the present
crime and about the involvement of the applicant.
Besides the other evidence, the strong circumstance for
which the investigation against the applicant has
become necessary due to similarity of answers given by
the two candidates who were sitting in the row - as large
as 194 questions out of 200 including 130 right answers
and 62 wrong answers. Further, the applicant has failed
to respond to the notice given by the Investigating
Officer to attend his office for the purpose of
investigation. The Investigating Agency is left with no
option but to now resort to declaring the applicant as
(3)
absconding accused to secure his arrest, which process,
it is stated will be initiated very shortly.
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned in the above
stated order dated 26.02.2015 in M.Cr.C. No.2234/2015
and companion matters, even this application deserves
to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
MCRC No.2261/2015, MCRC No.3164/2015 &
MCRC No.3165/2015
The applicants in all these applications are suspect
in Crime No.539/2013 registered at Police Station STF,
Bhopal - commonly known as VYAPAM Examination
Scam Cases for the offence punishable under sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code,
sections 65, 66 of the Information Technology Act,
2000 and section 3(d)1, 2/4 of the M.P. Recognized
Examination Act, 1937, pertaining to examination
conducted in 2012 by VYAPAM.
All these applicants are residing outside the State
of Madhya Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh/Bihar). They
appeared
for the Pre-Medical
Test examination
conducted by VYAPAM. According to the prosecution
each of the applicants in conspiracy with the racketeersDr.
Jagdish
Sagar/Sudhir
Rai
appeared
in
the
(4)
examination as Scorers to aid and assist the candidates
sitting next to them and committed unfair means during
the examination. It has come to the notice of the
Investigating Agency on the basis of material collected
during the investigation against the racketeers and the
middlemen involved in the commission of the crime
that each of these applicants had interacted with one or
the other middleman/racketeer. Their seat numbers were
realigned to ensure that they would be sitting near the
candidate who would be assisted in commission of
unfair means during the examination. The modus
operandi in commission of this crime and about the
involvement of each of these applicants who acted as
scorers is identical as in the case of other scorers who
hail from other States.
The similarity of answers given by the applicant in
M.Cr.C. No.2261/2015 and the beneficiary is found
matching to the extent of 183 answers out of 200
questions including 128 right answers and 55 wrong
answers.
The similarity of answers given by the applicant
in M.Cr.C. No.3164/2015 and the beneficiary was
matching to the extent of 200 out of 200 questions
including 134 right answers and 66 wrong answers.
(5)
The similarity of answers given by the applicant
in M.Cr.C. No.3165/2015 and the beneficiary was
matching to the extent of 174 out of 200 questions
including 119 right answers and 55 wrong answers.
Learned counsel for the applicants is not in a
position to point out any distinguishing feature. The
argument which has been canvassed for the applicants
is identical to the argument which has already been
dealt with by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.2234/2015 and
other companion matters decided yesterday by a
speaking order.
Even in the case of these applicants in spite of best
efforts made by the Investigating Officers, the
applicants were not traceable and in any case have not
made themselves available for recording of the
statement although the notices in that behalf have been
left with the relatives of the applicants at their known
address.
Counsel for the applicants now submits that the
notices addressed to the applicants were sent in the
previous year in 2014 and that the Investigating Officer
has not taken any follow up action thereafter. But the
Investigating Officer now intends to precipitate the
matter and is likely to arrest the applicants.
(6)
Since the Investigating Officer is in possession of
material to indicate complicity of the applicants in the
commission of the alleged offence and is wanting to
proceed against the applicants, the fact that the
Investigating Officer did not follow up the earlier
notice, can be no ground for doubting the bonafides of
the Investigating Officer. Judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that the case on hand is one of the VYAPAM
scam cases in which more than 2000 accused are
involved in total 54 cases registered so far. The
investigation of these cases are under monitoring of this
Court in Public Interest Litigation (W.P.No.6385/2014).
As new revelations have been made during the
ongoing investigation, and that the Investigating
Officers in each of these cases are obliged to file final
report before 15th March, 2015 in view of the assurance
given by the State before the Supreme Court,
entertaining the request of the applicants would
inevitably impede the free and fair progress of the
investigation and delay the process of filing of the
charge-sheet. That cannot be countenanced especially
when the Investigating Officer has already collected
material which prima facie indicates involvement of the
applicants in the commission of the crime and
conspiracy with the racketeers/middlemen. Further, the
(7)
investigation of these crimes is undoubtedly complex
one and cannot be taken to its logical end without
custodial interrogation.
Counsel for the State submits that the earlier
notices were sent on the addresses as furnished by the
applicants in the application form submitted by them to
the VYAPAM. However, in most of the cases, it has
transpired that the said addresses were incorrect and
fresh notices were issued to the concerned candidate on
the addresses now obtained after extensive enquiry. The
applicants before this Court, are amongst those
candidates to whom fresh notices have been issued by
the Investigating Officer in the concerned crime.
As aforesaid, taking overall view of the matter and
for the reasons recorded in M.Cr.C. No.2234/2015 and
connected
cases
decided
on
26.02.2015,
these
applications should fail and the same are dismissed.
We make it clear that if the applicants apply for
regular bail after arrest, the same will have to be
considered on its own merits in accordance with law
uninfluenced by the observations made in this order
which is for the limited purpose of considering prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail.
(8)
MCRC No.3158/2015, MCRC NO.3161/2015,
MCRC No.3171/2015 & MCRC No.3173/2015
The applicants in all these applications are suspect
in Crime No.12/2013 registered at Police Station STF,
Bhopal - commonly known as VYAPAM Examination
Scam Cases for the offence punishable under sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code,
sections 65, 66 of the Information Technology Act,
2000 and section 3(d)1, 2/4 of the M.P. Recognized
Examination Act, 1937.
Even in these applications the applicants are
residents of other States (other than State of M.P. i.e.
Uttar Pradesh/Bihar).
Counsel for the applicants has not been able to
point out any distinguishing feature to consider these
applications differently than the one already decided of
other scorers. The fact situation in the present
applications is identical to the fact situation in the cases
decided yesterday bearing MCRC No.2234/2015 and
connected cases as also decided today. Even in these
cases, the applicants conspired with the racketeers –
Jagdish Sagar/ Santosh Gupta and acted as scorers in
the examination of PMT 2012 conducted by VYAPAM
to aid and assist another candidate who was to appear in
(9)
the same examination.
The similarity of answers given by the applicant in
M.Cr.C. No.3158/2015 and the beneficiary was
matching to the extent of 181 out of 200 questions
including 135 right answers and 46 wrong answers.
The similarity of answers given by the applicant in
M.Cr.C. No.3161/2015 and the beneficiary was
matching to the extent of 194 out of 200 questions
including 123 right answers and 71 wrong answers.
The similarity of answers given by the applicant in
M.Cr.C. No.3171/2015 and the beneficiary was
matching to the extent of 182 out of 200 questions
including 140 right answers and 42 wrong answers.
The similarity of answers given by the applicant in
M.Cr.C. No.3173/2015 and the beneficiary was
matching to the extent of 191 out of 200 questions
including 144 right answers and 47 wrong answers.
As aforesaid, even the wrong answers given by
both the candidates, are found to be substantially
matching. This is a strong circumstance to indicate the
complicity of the applicants. In addition, role played by
each of the applicant has been traced on the basis of
entries found in the diaries and other documents
recovered from the racketeers/middlemen. The attempt
of the Investigating Officer to serve notices on the
(10)
applicants did not fructify because of wrong addresses
furnished by applicants in the application form
submitted to VYAPAM for issuance of hall ticket to
appear in the examination conducted by VYAPAM.
The modus operandi of commission of crime by
applicants is identical to the other cases referred to
above and decided by this Court.
For the reasons recorded in companion cases and
including in the order dated 26.02.2015 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.2234/2015 and companion cases, even
these applications should fail and the same are
dismissed.
(A. M. Khanwilkar)
Chief Justice
psm
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge