Pawan Kumar Sharma vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Heard applicants in person. Since they have already discharged their Advocate on earlier occasion, they chose to appear in person. Both the applicants are suspect in connection with Crime No. 12/2013 registered at Police Station STF Bhopal for offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. read with sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and section 3(d), 1 and 2/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937 -commonly known as VYAPAM Examination Scam cases.

Applicant no. 1 is father of applicant no. 2. According to the prosecution, applicant no. 1 interacted with the middleman and Racketeers to facilitate his son/applicant no. 2 to score good marks in the examination conducted by VYAPAM by committing unfair means during the examination. The applicants have been named as accused in another offence registered as Crime No. 539/2013 for similar offence committed by the applicants in relation to examination conducted by VYAPAM in the year 2013. Both the applicants have been released on bail in connection with that offence. In the present case, the applicants were given opportunity to appear before the Investigating Officer for recording of their statements. Applicants did appear before the Investigating Officer but, as stated by learned counsel for State, the said appearance was only a formality by the applicants without disclosing any relevant information. The Investigating Officer has already collected material during the investigation indicating involvement of the applicants in commission of alleged crime. To verify the actual position, which has become available to the Investigating Officer, it has become necessary for the Investigating Officer to resort to custodial interrogation of the applicants. However, from the reason recorded by the Trial Court, it is amply clear that the main acts of commission and omission are attributable to the applicant no. 1-who facilitated his son/applicant no. 2 to commit the alleged offences. The evidence already available with Investigating Officer does indicate that applicant no. 1 had contacted the middleman and Racketeers in connection with the examination scheduled in June, 2012 in which applicant no. 2 was supposed to appear. With the assistance and in conspiracy with the said middleman and Racketeers, Scorer was arranged to appear in the examination and to facilitate applicant no. 2 for consideration. In that sense, applicant no. 2 did not take direct part in the conspiracy. It is the applicant no. 1 who was leading from the front. Thus understood, applicant no. 2 may have to be treated differently than applicant no. 1.

The purpose of custodial interrogation is to get relevant information from the accused who is member of the conspiracy, as is the involvement of applicant no. 1. However, no fruitful purpose would be served by custodial interrogation of applicant no. 2 as he may not be able to give any meaningful information regarding the conspiracy. That information is within the personal knowledge of applicant no. 1. The efficiency of custodial information has been delineated by the Supreme Court in the case of State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806 : (1997) CriLJ 4414 : (1997) 3 Crimes 252 : (1997) 3 CTC 60 : (1997) 7 JT 651 : (1997) 5 SCALE 689 : (1997) 7 SCC 187 : (1997) 3 SCR 737 Supp : (1997) AIRSCW 3722 : (1997) 7 Supreme 670 . In paragraph 6 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed thus:-

"We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information''s and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulate by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

As regards applicant no. 2, considering the fact that he has assured to extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation of Crime No. 12/2013 and to abide by any such condition as imposed by the Court, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. However, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to applicant no. 1 as his custodial interrogation has become necessary. It has been noticed as in other cases, that the investigation of this crime is very complex and involves large number of accused (around 2000) and that the Investigating Agency has given assurance to the Supreme Court to submit final report in respect of these cases before 15.03.2015. Thus, any indulgence shown to applicant no. 1 would only delay the process of investigation and fling of the charge-sheet.

Accordingly, anticipatory bail of applicant no. 1 is rejected.

Application is partly allowed only qua applicant No. 2. Accordingly, the applicant No. 2 is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and with undertaking that the applicant no. 2 will comply with other requirements and conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) read with 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

Certified copy as per rules.