1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1106 OF 2010 Pramod s/o Vyankatrao Kalse ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra . ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri V.B. Ghatge, Advocate, holding for Shri B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the applicant Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 4th May, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Mr. Ghatge, learned counsel holding for Mr. Gadegaonkar, states that he has got the instructions to appear for the applicant and undertakes to file Vakalatnama in the registry along with No Objection of Mr. Vijay Sharma, earlier Advocate of the applicant. Accordingly, appearance of Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant stands discharged. 2. Heard Mr. Ghatge, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. More, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 3. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest under C.R. No.I-61/2010, registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Maharashtra University, Board and Other Examination Act, 1982. 4. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by Mr. Balasaheb Gangadhar Sase, on 13.2.2010. It is alleged in the said complaint that, on 3.2.2010 a competitive examination for the post of Assistant Store Keeper/ Clerk was conducted at I.T.I., Railway Station Road, Aurangabad under the supervision of Deputy Director and Vice Principal. It was the examination for 200 marks of objective type having multiple choices therein. The applicant herein appeared for the said examination along with other candidates. During the said examination, one of the candidates namely Nitinkumar Chatekar complained to the Supervisor that applicant was copying. Hence, search of the applicant was conducted, but nothing objectionable was found from his possession and, therefore, he was permitted to appear for further examination. However, it is alleged that, at about 2.00 p.m., when the examination was on the verge of completion, the above referred candidate namely Chatekar found that the applicant namely Pramod Vyankatrao Kalse was copying from the 3 pad which was brought by him for the said examination and applicant had started to erase the said answers from the pad and attempted to destroy the evidence of the said copy and, therefore, quarrels took place. Thereupon, the complainant herein entered into the said examination hall and asked the applicant not to erase the answers on the pad and also asked to surrender the said pad. However, the applicant became angry and started shouting loudly stating that his father was working as Instructor in I.T.I. and he had contacts with Deputy Director Shri Jaiswal and nobody would take any action against him and accordingly, he started shouting and giving abuses. It is further alleged that, considering the aspect that further examination was scheduled from 3.00 to 5.00, and with a view to control the situation, the complainant confiscated the pad which was handed over by applicant to Mr. L.P. Kulkarni and recorded statement of Mr. Chatekar as well as applicant herein. It is also alleged in the said complaint that, it was clearly seen from the said pad that out of 71 answers, the 62 answers tallied with the answers of the question paper and, therefore, it was apparent that, applicant herein obtained the answers of the questions prior to examination and copied the said answers from the pad while giving the said examination. It is also stated in the said complaint that present matter does not restrict to the copying by the applicant but it is necessary to find out from where and from whom he obtained the questions of the question paper and answers thereof and to 4 which other candidate he has helped accordingly. 5. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that, considering the contents of the complaint, it is apparent that the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are absent therein and, therefore, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted and consequently, Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code also would not be attracted. It is also submitted that, at the most provision of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and Other Examinations Act, 1982 would be applied, which attracts punishment for the period of six months, which is a bailable offence and, therefore, present application of the applicant is reuired to be considered for the grant of anticipatory bail. It is further canvassed that, although the role of Director and Deputy Director has been surfaced in the complaint, they have not been arraigned as accused in the present complaint. It is further urged that, considering the gravity and accusations made against the applicant, the present application deserves to be allowed. 6. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that, the selection process of the post for the Assistant Store Keeper was based only upon the written examination which is of objective type i.e. multiple choice 5 examination and no interview has been contemplated in the said selection process and, therefore, it is urged that, the said written examination is important and carries weightage in the said selection process. It is also canvassed that the father of the applicant is working in the same Department as Instructor and, therefore, matter has to be investigated thoroughly and the internal connections in the aforesaid copying are required to be traced out. It is also submitted that, it is apparent from the contents of complaint that there was leakage of question paper and answers thereof prior to the aforesaid examination and it appears that, fraud has been played in that respect and the matter is required to be investigated thoroughly and, therefore, it is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the said purpose. The learned A.P.P. also pointed out that, the applicant herein has threatened the complainant as well as another candidate namely Mr. Chatekar and therefore, there is possibility of tampering of evidence and/or influencing upon the witnesses if the present application is allowed, and therefore, he urged to reject the present application. 7. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, at the outset, the name of the applicant herein has been reflected in the contents of complaint and 6 specific role and overt act has been attributed to him in the alleged offence and, therefore, apparently, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the present offence. Moreover, it is also apparent from the said complaint that, it was clearly seen from the pad which was confiscated from the applicant that, out of 71 answers, 62 answers tallied with the answers of the question paper, and, therefore, it is necessary to investigate, from whom the applicant procured the said questions and answers thereof prior to the examination, which he apparently tried to destroy by erasing from the said pad as well as it is also apparent that, the said question paper was leaked prior to the examination and the said questions and answers thereof were found serially on the pad of the applicant, and, therefore, the said aspect is required to be investigated thoroughly and hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the said purpose. 8. Besides that, apprehension is posed that if the present application is allowed, there is possibility of tampering of the evidence and/or influencing upon the witnesses since the applicant has already threatened the complainant and one of the candidates namely Chatekar earlier and the said apprehension also cannot be ignored. Apart from that, it is also canvassed that the father of the applicant is working as Instructor in the same Department and leakage of the question papers and answers thereof was apparent 7 prior to examination and the said aspect as well as the remote connections of the persons involved therein are also required to be traced out. Moreover, allegations have been made against the Director and Deputy Director and, therefore, their connections, if any, in the present offence, are also required to be traced out and investigation in that respect is necessary. 9. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid facts and considering the accusations made against the applicant and nature and gravity thereof, present matter is required to be investigated to its root and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the application is inevitable, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 10. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. 11. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri1106.10