1 MCRC-37574-2019 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-37574-2019 (ARUNENDRA SHUKLA Vs [ENTITY]. POLICE STATION) Jabalpur, Dated : 16-10-2019 Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the applicant. Shri [ENTITY], learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent/[ENTITY].
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
The applicant is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 417, [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], 120B of IPC and Section 3(D)(1)(2) (4) of the [ACT] vide [CASE NUMBER] registered by [ENTITY].
Allegation against the applicant, as per prosecution, is that the applicant acted as a middleman and as such, arranged an impersonator viz. [ENTITY] for the beneficiary viz. [ENTITY] in PMT 2010 and thus, helped him in securing a seat in Gandhi Medical College.
It is urged that the applicant is a Doctor by profession and is falsely implicated. It is contended that during investigation, the applicant cooperated with the [ENTITY]. It is also the contention that earlier in pursuance to direction by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP [CASE NUMBER], the applicant surrendered on 29.08.2019 and since then he is in custody. It is contended that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future, and there being no possibility of applicant fleeing away from justice and is not an habitual offender. It is also the contention that the applicant is ready to abide by all directions. On these contentions, the applicant seeks bail. Reliance is placed on the decisions in [PRECEDENT] vs. [ENTITY] AIR 2012 SC 830 and State of Rajasthan vs. [PRECEDENT] AIR 1977 SC 2447 to substantiate the contention that the bail and not the jail is the basic rule of criminal jurisprudence. The applicant has also placed reliance on the orders passed in [PRECEDENT], Jaydeep 2 MCRC-37574-2019 [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and Ramkumar Dhakad vs [ENTITY] :
MCrC No.30799/2019 who are co-accused and are admitted to bail. Reliance is also placed on the orders passed in other crime numbers.
The respondent-[ENTITY] has opposed the bail application. It is urged that initially the case was registered against 28 candidates who had taken admission in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. Later on, 18 more candidates were added, taking the total number of the accused candidates to 46. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is that of a middleman. Investigation revealed that he had arranged the impersonator [ENTITY] for one [ENTITY], a candidate of PMT 2010 Examination. After [ENTITY] was declared qualified in PMT 2010 with the help of [ENTITY], who had appeared in the written examination in place of the candidate [ENTITY], impersonator [ENTITY] also attended the PMT counselling in place of the candidate where the applicant middleman falsely identified the impersonator [ENTITY] as the real candidate [ENTITY]. The applicant had also signed on the consent form implying that the accused impersonator was the genuine candidate. He also unjustly enriched himself by the amount of Rs.24,000/- which was deposited by another accused middleman [ENTITY] (uncle of the accused candidate) in the bank account given by the applicant. It is contended that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the co-accused [ENTITY], a clerk of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal replaced the photograph of the impersonator [ENTITY] with the photograph of the candidate [ENTITY] in the allotment slip-cum-allotment order. Investigation also revealed that the allotment slip-cum-allotment order kept in DME records bears the photograph of the impersonator [ENTITY] while that kept in the college record bears the photograph of the candidate [ENTITY]. It is contended that the allegations against the applicant are fully established during investigation with cogent evidence and a police report under [SECTION]
3 MCRC-37574-2019 [ACT] has been submitted by [ENTITY] against him in learned Court of ACJM and Special Magistrate for Vyapam Cases, Bhopal on 17.05.2019 under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of IPC and [SECTION] of MPRE Act, 1937. It is contended that the applicant did not attend the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Vyapam Cases, Bhopal on 17.05.2019 deliberately despite serving notice by [ENTITY] for his appearance in the aforesaid Court intimating that the supplementary charge sheet was being filed against him on the said date. It is further submitted that after filing of charge sheet, learned Court of ACJM & Special Magistrate Bhopal issued non-bailable warrant of his arrest and production before the said Court. Several attempts were made by [ENTITY] to execute the arrest warrant but he could not be traced at his known place of stay. The family members of the applicant had also denied giving any information about the warrantee. On these submissions, the respondent seeks dismissal of bail application.
Considered the rival submissions.
The role ascribed to the applicant is that of middleman and the offence committed besides being serious in nature has been prima facie effected in an organized manner, as would attract the principle of law laid down in [PRECEDENT] (supra) and [PRECEDENT] (supra). Evidently, the applicant remained absconded from the date of filing of charge-sheet on 17.05.2019 and surrendered only when directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, there is possibility of his not co-operating in smooth conduction of trial. In view of these facts, the applicant is not benefited from the orders whereby some of the co-accused are extended bail.
Consequently, the application fails and is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
([ENTITY]) ([ENTITY]) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE vinod 4 MCRC-37574-2019