Jagpal Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is repeat application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Earlier M.Cr.C.No.40037/2018 was dismissed as withdrawn.

The applicant is tried for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Section 3 (1) (2)/4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937.

The role ascribed to the applicant is that of impersonating co-accused Dushyant Singh Bhadouria a selectee in PMT-2010 conducted by VYAPAM. The facts of the case reveal that a case was registered at Police Station Jhansi Road Gwalior on 15.05.2015 under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against Dushyant Singh Bhadouria, for his fraudulent selection in PMT (Pre Medical Test)-2010 conducted by VYAPAM. During investigation two more accused viz., Satendra Singh Bhadouria, S/o Bhikam Singh Bhadouria (father of the accused Dushyant Singh) and Omkar S/o Veerpal Singh Gujjar surfaced. Further section 417 IPC and section 3 (d)(1)(2)/4 of 1937 Act were added. The co-accused Dushyant Singh Bhadouria in his memorandum under Section 27 Evidence Act disclosed the fact that Omkar Gujjar had arranged for solver to appear on his behalf in PMT-2010 in return of Rupees Five Lacs, which was allegedly arranged by Satendra Singh. Against Dushyant Singh Bhadouria, the CBI filed the charge-sheet in July 2016 on the basis of negative forensic opinion on hand writing.

In course of further investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant who was student of Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial (GSVM) Medical College, Kanpur in personated the said Dushyant Singh Bhadouria in the written examination of M.P. PMT-2010. The specimen handwriting of the applicant was obtained in the presence of independent witness which was sent to CFSL, New Delhi for comparison with the questioned documents pertaining to PMT-2010 examination of Dushyant Singh Bhadouria. Questioned photograph of Dushyant Singh Bhadouria, was also sent for its comparison to the CFSL, New Delhi. It was found morphed.

The forensic expert from CFSL, New Delhi has opined that the handwriting on the application form of PMT 2010 of Dushyant Singh Bhadoria is of Jagpal Singh thereby establishing that application form of PMT 2010 of Dushyant Singh Bhadoria was filled by Jagpal Singh. Further, forensic expert also opined that the handwriting on the OMR answersheet, cover page of question booklet and RASA sheet of PMT 2010 of Dushyant Singh Bhadoria is of Jagpal Singh thereby establishing that Jagpal Singh had appeared in the written examination of PMT 2010 in place of Dushyant Singh Bhadoria. Moreover, the photograph used in the admission process of PMT 2010 of accused candidate Dushyant Singh Bhadoria is morphed photograph whose maximum features matches with that of the photograph of accused applicant Jagpal Singh.

Further the Forensic expert from CFSL, New Delhi has opined that the handwriting on the application form of PMT 2010 of Dushyant Singh Bhadoria is of Jagpal Singh thereby establishing that application form of PMT 2010 of Dushyant Singh Bhadoria was filled by Jagpal Singh. Further, forensic expert also opined that the handwriting on the OMR answersheet, cover page of question booklet and RASA sheet of PMT 2010 of Dushyant Singh Bhadoria is of Jagpal Singh thereby establishing that Jagpal Singh had appeared in the writen examination of PMT 2010 in place of Dushyant Singh Bhadoria. Moreover, the photograph used in the admission process of PMT 2010  of accused candidate Dushyant Singh Bhadoria  is morphed photograph whose maximum features matches with that of the photograph of accused applicant Jagpal Singh.

These facts were led to the prosecution.

In these facts situation, the applicant claims parity with the co-accused Dushyant Singh Bhadouria who was released on bail by order dated 02.11.2015 in M.Cr.C.No.9384/2015. It is further contended that the applicant co-operated through entire investigation and presented himself when the CBI filed the charge-sheet. It is urged that the charge-sheet is filed and there is no stage for in custody confrontation. It is urged that the applicant is in jail since 21.08.2018.

The respondent CBI has opposed the bail denying any parity. It is urged that the manner in which the crime is given effect to reveals that the same has been commissioned in an organised manner, which leaves an impression that the accused persons operate syndicate. It is urged that if released on bail there is a possibility of the applicant of tampering with the evidences. The claim parity is denied.

Considered rival submissions. Perused material documents on record.

Trite it is as observed by their Lordships in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 that "the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal Courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with the great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general". Thus interest of the society is one of the  paramount consideration while exercising the discretion. Similarly in Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, it is observed that two paramount considerations while considering a petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. As the same acquire significance in context to fair trial, which, both the accused  as  well  as  the  prosecution  is  entitled  for.  (Please  see Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372 : "6. ......... The only material consideration in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence.)

In Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, it is observed by their Lordships:-

"6. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."

In the present case as prima facie appear from the facts adverted supra that the crime besides being of serious nature has been commissioned  in  an  organized  manner  and  in  absence  of  the eyewitnesses, it is the chain of events which are required to be linked to establish the conspiracy. As apprehended, the likelihood whereof is not ruled out that the applicant who as alleged has been arranged by one  Omkar  Gujjar,  which  makes  his  case  different  from  the beneficiary, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Consequently, application fails and is dismissed.