Atibal Singh Yadav vs State of MP

Investigating officer in the crime No. 138/2013 Shri Akhilesh Renwal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, posted as CSP, Morar, Gwalior is present in person along with the case diary.

On behalf of the applicant Atibal Singh Yadav 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. 138/2013 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and section 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examination Act.

Applicant''s counsel after taking us through the bail petition along with the rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that the impugned case has been registered in connection with fraud and forgery committed by various persons in respect of competitive PMT Examination held by VYAPAM of the State of MP. In continuation, he submits that according to the available information in the course of investigation, the aforesaid Police is interested to implicate the applicant in the alleged offence on the basis of some false and fabricated story while the applicant has not committed any such alleged offence. In addition, he submits that his son Arun Yadav has passed out the alleged PMT Examination and pursuant to that, he has secured admission in medical course of MBBS. However, subsequent to registration of the impugned crime, his son has been implicated in the case on the ground that by adopting illegal affairs and affixing the photograph of some other person on the form of PMT Examination he did not appear in the examination and such examination was given on his behalf by some solver/scorer, and as per further case of the prosecution, all such illegal affairs were managed by present applicant, being father of Arun Yadav by involving himself in the criminal conspiracy with the arrested co- accused Deepak Yadav by paying him the consideration of Rs.seven lakhs. As alleged such sum was paid by the applicant to said Deepak Yadav to manage the affairs of such admission as well as to manage the solver and in such premises, the prosecution is trying to implicate the present applicant in the alleged offence. In continuation, he submits that earlier there was apprehension to his son of his arrest in the impugned crime on which he initially approached the Sessions Court and anticipatory bail was granted to him, but subsequent to invocation of some additional sections of the offences of the Indian Penal Code, he again approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail and such petition was dismissed, on which he came to this Court, but on consideration, such petition of his son for anticipatory bail was dismissed, against that he approached the Apex Court through SLP (Cr.) 51/2015, and on consideration, the Apex Court by allowing such SLP has extended benefit of anticipatory bail to his son Arun Yadav vide order dated 23/2/2015. In support of such contention, counsel has also referred to copy of such order. Same is taken on record. He further submits that according to his information, in the course of investigation form of the son of the applicant was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory at Sagar where on examination the photograph of his son was not found to be mismatched. In continuation, he said that so far as handwriting on the form and other document is concerned, as per available information, form to examine the handwriting was never sent by the investigation agency to the Forensic Science Laboratory or to any other expert for opinion. He further submits that on receiving report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar regarding aforesaid photograph, such papers were again sent to some forensic laboratory at Gandhinagar (Gujrat), but from such laboratory also no adverse report has been received in respect of son of the applicant. In such premises, in the lack of such material evidence, there is no circumstance in the matter to draw any inference against the applicant that his son was involved in the alleged offence or the applicant had managed any affairs to secure admission of his son Arun Yadav in the MBBS course through PMT Examination through middle man or racketeer like Deepak Yadav by illegal means. With these submissions, he prayed to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant by allowing this bail petition. He also placed reliance on a decided case of the Apex Court in the matter of Shobhan Singh Khanka Vs. The State of Jharkhand, .

On the other hand, with the assistance of the case diary, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the aforesaid prayer saying that in view of the evidence collected by the investigating agency till today available in the case diary, the applicant was the main person who managed all the illegal affairs to secure admission of his son in the medical course through racketeer and middle man Deepak Yadav, who has already been arrested in the case and on disclosing information by such racketeer, the facts relating to the act of the applicant had come into knowledge of the investigating agency. Since then, the investigating agency is trying to trace the present applicant but could not get success to trace him out and arrest to carry out necessary custodial interrogation. In continuation, he said that so far as case of the son of the applicant, to whom benefit of anticipatory bail has been extended by the Apex Court is concerned, case of the applicant''s son is squarely different than the case of the present applicant because the present applicant had managed illegal affairs by making payment of rupees seven lakhs to Deepak Yadav to secure seat for his son in MBBS course. So, the applicant has played major role in the impugned offence with the racketeer Deepak Yadav who at the instance of the applicant in consideration of the sum had managed the solver to appear in the examination at the place of the son of the applicant to secure the admission of his son in the MBBS course. In continuation, he also said that various persons who are involved in the alleged racket are yet to be arrested and as many as forty-two persons including accused Rajesh Kurmi who appeared as a solver at the place of the son of the applicant, are still absconding. So in the available circumstances, to carry out fair and complete investigation, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary and the same could be carried out only after taking the arrest of the applicant. He further said that other co-accused situated in the similar circumstances have been arrested and their interrogation has been/is being carried out, so in the case of the applicant no discriminatory procedure should be adopted by the Court.

So far as order of the Apex Court passed in SLP (Cr.) 51/2015 in the matter of son of the applicant is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General submits that on mere perusal of such order it is apparent that no principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in such order and in view of distinguishing features in the case of the applicant and his son, in any case, such order is not helping the applicant. So far as other case law cited by applicant''s counsel is concerned, he said that on account of different facts and circumstances, the cited case being distinguishable from the case at hand is not helping to the applicant and prayed for dismissal of this petition. In support of the contentions, learned Additional Advocate General relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in the matters Gajanand Agarwal Vs. State of Orissa and Others, , Maruti Nivrutti Navale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, and a decision of Single Bench of this Court in Sitaram Vs. Union of India, .

Having heard counsel, keeping in view their arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the petition as well as rejection order of the Sessions Court along with the case diary.

It is an undisputed fact that through the alleged examination of PMT held by VYAPAM, Arun Yadav, son of the present applicant had secured admission in medical course in some college of State of MP. Subsequent to such examination, on availability of some information of the impugned crime, the case was registered and in the investigation, on availability of prima facie evidence to the investigating agency against some senior officials of the system of VYAPAM, on which after making their arrest on disclosing the informations by them, their memorandum u/s 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded and on the basis of such information, further investigation was carried out and during such investigation, prima facie circumstance came into knowledge of the investigating agency that son of the applicant Arun Yadav had got admission in the medical course through illegal means which were managed by his father the present applicant through middle man Deepak Yadav for a consideration of rupees seven lakhs. The son of the applicant being beneficiary of such illegal admission, thus the investigation was also started against him. As per submission of the applicant''s counsel as stated in the earlier part of this order that his son had got anticipatory bail at the initial stage from the Sessions Court and subsequently he has also got anticipatory bail from the Apex Court as stated above, but in the available circumstances, such order of son is helping the applicant.

Mere perusal of the case diary and the available collected evidence till today, it is apparent that the son of the applicant was beneficiary of such medical course, but the major role to secure the admission of his son in MBBS course by illegal means through racketeers/middlemen, was played by the present applicant. He also paid the sum of rupees seven lakhs to Deepak Yadav to carry out such illegal act for which prima facie evidence is available against the applicant in the case diary. There is also prima facie evidence to show that son of the applicant had passed the alleged PMT Examination through solver Rakesh Kurmi (Absconding accused) and secured admission in the alleged medical course. So, in such premises, to verify the various facts and circumstances and to carry out proper and fair investigation, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.

We are also of the considered view that by the alleged act, the applicant accompanied Deepak Yadav and other persons and solver has not only played with the system of VYAPAM but by such act of the present applicant and his associates, he has deprived those bona fide and genuine persons to get admission in the alleged medical course at their proper age who appeared in such competitive PMT Examination held by VYAPAM on the basis of their own labour and study. By such act of those offenders, such bona fide and genuine students could not get admission in medical course to make their bright career at their proper age in the medical field. So, the applicant and his associates have not only committed offence punishable under the law but they have also committed the offences against the society at large, and therefore, we are of the considered view that to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail, lenient view could not be adopted in the present matter for the applicant.

So far as the case laws cited on behalf of the applicant are concerned, we did not have any dispute regarding such orders, but on mere perusal of such orders, it is apparent that in such matters, no such principle has been laid down which could be treated to be binding principle. We are of the considered view that bail matters are always considered and decided on the basis of available circumstances of the concerning criminal cases and in one case situation of accused to accused may be different and in the case in hand, situation of the applicant and his son has been found to be different as stated above. So the cited case on behalf of the applicant is not helping the applicant in the present matter.

So far as case laws cited on behalf of the State of MP by the learned Additional Advocate General are concerned, we are not in dispute with the observations and the directions given in such cited cases.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, in the available circumstances, we are of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the applicant in the case is necessary, thus, the benefit of anticipatory bail could not be extended to the applicant.

Consequently, we are not inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, resultantly, this bail petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.