1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.6456/2010 Vediram @ Vedilal Vs. State Date of order : 18/8/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.R. Bajwa Sr. Advocate with) Shri V.R. Bajwa ) Shri Pankaj Gupta ) for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Rathore, P.P. for the State. ****** This application for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by the accused petitioner Vediram @ Vedilal in FIR No.2/2009, Police Station Sog, District Jaipur. Shri S.R. Bajwa, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only because he is an active politician and that certain cases of this nature were registered against him in the State of Uttar Pradesh at the behest of Chief of Special Task Force, Uttar Pradesh, who is having a grudge against him because his wife has made complaint against him. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement of co-accused, which cannot be relied in support of such allegations. It is contended that the allegation of cheating is not borne out from the facts of the case and therefore offences u/s.419 and 420 are not attracted. As regards the offence u/s.4/6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act is concerned, learned counsel submitted that as per the language employed in that provision, it 2 would be evident that the allegations against the petitioner, cannot be brought within the four corners of that provision. Petitioner is already in jail for last more than one year in State of Uttar Pradesh in some other case. It was always open to the respondent to go and interrogate the petitioner and for that purpose, investigation could have been carried out further. They have not even shown the formal arrest of the petitioner, although they had the opportunity to get the production warrants issued in that behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the transcription of the telephone conversation between petitioner and certain other persons, cannot be relied on at this stage because it is not known as to if they pertain to which period and are to what effect. Prosecution should therefore be required to disclose the same to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already been granted bail u/s.439 Cr.P.C. by order of the Allahabad High Court on 21.7.2010. It is therefore wrong to contend that the petitioner is involved in cases of similar nature in 2006. Had it been so, it would not be considered fit for the Court to grant him bail pending trial. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the liberty of the petitioner may not be curtailed as he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and he be granted benefit of pre-arrest bail. Per contra, learned PP opposed the bail application and submitted that it is a racket of which petitioner is kingpin. There are two 3 more cases of similar nature against him wherein the examination papers were leaked and petitioner was found behind it. Reference was made to one case of year 2006 and another of 2010. It is contended that in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is of providing examination papers of Assistant Station Master conducted by Railway Recruitment Board on consideration of sum of Rs.3.5 lacs, which was leaked to as many as 94 candidates. The investigating agency is very eager to proceed in the matter and arrest him, which is evident from the fact that they have, on as many as three occasions procured his production warrants and approached the Court concerned in Uttar Pradesh, but on earlier two occasions, his custody was not handed over. Now they have recently again procured the production warrant. Learned PP referred to transcription of telephonic conversation and also referred to certain other material in the case diary. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage when the investigation is still pending and the custody of the petitioner is required by the Police to carry out further investigation. The bail application u/s.438 Cr.P.C. is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/