Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 27/09/2019 by Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior(M.P.) in connection with Crime No.392/2014 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of M.P. Recognized Examination Act.

Cheating and forgery is alleged against the applicant along-with other ancillary offences based on allegation that applicant appeared as impersonator in place of candidate in PMT-2008 examination. The applicant is in custody since 27/09/2019 in respect of an offence which was committed sometime in 2014.

Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon order dated 25/11/2019 in respect of other Crime No.175/2009 involving offence of similar nature where this Court granted bail to a person who was an impersonator and involved similar circumstances as attending the present case.

Reading of order dated 25/11/2019 reveals that the applicant therein was though an impersonator but the impression carried by this Court was that he was the candidate and considering fact that bail orders have no precedential value, especially a bail order passed in some other crime number, the said order dated 25/11/2019 is of no avail to the applicant.

Learned counsel for respondent/CBI informs that initially the case was being dealt with by the State police where 21 persons were made accused but the middleman was not traced out and after investigation was handed over to the CBI, several middlemen traced out and the petitioner's role as impersonator was discovered. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent/CBI informs that some of the accused are still absconding.

The reply of the CBI reveals that the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed on 27/09/2019. Reply of the CBI further reveals that the petitioner cooperated during the investigation.

Though the applicant cooperated in the investigation process but considering the gravity of offence and its wide repercussions over the society at large, it would be appropriate if some of the main witnesses are allowed to be examined before request for bail is considered.

In view of above, this Court for time being declines bail to the petitioner and rejects this 1st bail application with liberty to the applicant to come again after examination of principal prosecution witnesses or if the trial gets further delayed whichever is earlier.