@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This is second bail application by the present applicant, before this High Court. First application was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court after filing of the charge sheet. The applicant has been named as an accused in Crime No. 12/2013 registered with STF, Police Station, Bhopal commonly known as VYAPAM scam cases.
2. The prosecution case in the charge sheet filed against the applicant reads thus:--
3. The Trial Court while rejecting bail application has analysed the material filed along with the charge sheet and has opined as follows :--
4. The applicant, however, contends through Counsel that going by the charge sheet, it is unfathomable that any legal evidence is available on record to indicate the complicity of the applicant. We are not impressed by this submission after having perused the charge sheet and the opinion recorded by the Trial Court on analysis of the charge sheet The argument proceeds that the applicant was allotted serial No. 288 as against serial No. 226 allotted to Rituraj, the beneficiary, who had appeared in the examination. It is incomprehensible that the applicant can be made accountable for the answers given by Rituraj. Moreso, when the roll numbers were not continuous and for which reason it is not possible to conceive that the applicant could have assisted Rituraj in answering the questions, who was sitting far away from the applicant. The argument though attractive at the first blush does not support the factual situation emerging from the material, which is placed on record along with the charge sheet. The number which is referred to is serial numbers of the candidates and not the roll numbers in the examination centre as such. In any case that will be material at the trial, to be substantiated by the prosecution.
5. The next argument of the applicant is that Rituraj has not been named as accused nor even as an absconding accused in the charge sheet filed against the applicant. Even this submission deserves to be stated to be rejected as it has been pointed out by Counsel for the State that Rituraj has been arrested in connection with the same crime on 31-5-2014 as accused and charge sheet will be filed against him in due course. Presently, the charge sheet is filed against the arrested accused persons, inter alia, the applicant before this Court. On the basis of that charge sheet, it is not open to the applicant to contend that Rituraj is not named as an accused by the prosecution. The argument is founded on misinformation.
6. The next argument of the applicant is that the applicant was bona fide student. However, the Trial Court as also the prosecution has given undue importance to the fact that he had appeared in 2012 examination as also in 2013 examination. That does not make him a professional scorer. The argument proceeds that in the examination held in the year 2012, although the applicant passed that examination but could secure admission only in private Medical College. As the applicant was unable to afford the annual fees for the private Medical College, the applicant had to take another chance by appearing in the next examination in the year 2013, to secure admission against Government seat. It is also submitted that the applicant had secured admission in Uttar Pradesh Medical College against Government seat and, therefore, there was no reason for the applicant to appear as scorer as such for someone else.
7. The argument though attractive at the first blush deserves to be rejected. It clearly overlooks the provisions of the Medical College Admission rules applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Admittedly, the applicant is resident of Uttar Pradesh. As per the Rules in vogue, be it of examination of 2012 or of 2013, both envisage that only residents of Madhya Pradesh would be eligible to appear against the Government seats. That is the eligibility criteria for getting admission in any Government College or for that matter Government seat in a private Medical College. This position is reinforced from Rule 9(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Under Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2013. From those Rules, it is indisputable that the applicant could have secured admission only against the seats in private Medical College on payment of regular fees, which admission was secured by him in the examination conducted in the year 2012. The fact that the applicant had already secured admission in Uttar Pradesh Medical College does not belie the prosecution case nor undermines the allegations against the applicant that he acted as professional scorer. It is a different matter that he was arrested on 8-7-2013 before commencement of the examination in 2013. The fact remains that knowing full well that he would not be admitted against Government seats in State of M.P. being resident of State of U.P., there was no tangible reason for him to appear in the VYAPAM examination 2013 once again.
8. Suffice it to observe, that the material available on record does not support the claim, of the applicant that he had bona fide appeared in the examination 2013.
9. The next argument of the applicant that the chart annexed along with the record of call details is not admissible. Even this argument does not commend to us. We find force in the stand taken by the learned counsel for the State that further police report under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. will be filed as further investigation is pending against this applicant and other co-accused. The evidence as required for the purposes of Information Technology Act and the amended provisions of Evidence Act, will be furnished along with further charge sheet, if it is not there in the present charge sheet.
10. From the call details, which have come on record, it has been pointed out that the applicant was in constant contact with Vivek Yadav the Middleman from Uttar Pradesh, who was responsible to engage the applicant as the professional scorer. The said Vivek Yadav was in constant contact with Jagdish Sagar, who is allegedly the mastermind in the VYAPAM scam cases. No doubt, Jagdish Sagar is presently in jail, but as of now Vivek Yadav has not been arrested in spite of best efforts made by the Investigating Agency to arrest him for last one year. The Investigating Agency has now been advised to pursue appropriate action against Vivek Yadav.
11. Suffice it to observe that the argument under consideration cannot be the basis to hold that no legal evidence is forthcoming against the applicant to indicate his complicity in commission of the crime. The next argument of the applicant is that there is no legal evidence to substantiate that the applicant had received Rs. 50,000 for vacating the seat secured in private Medical College in the year 2012. That by itself cannot be the basis for the time being to assume that the applicant was not involved in commission of crime in connection with the unfair means adopted during VYAPAM examination of 2013. Accordingly, even this submission will have to be rejected.
12. The next argument of the applicant is that the Trial Court has completely overlooked the fact that bail bonds furnished for release if the applicant by his relatives (who were residents of Indore), were not accepted because of objection taken by the Investigating Agency. But that does not meant that the applicant intended to flee from the ends of justice. Instead, the applicant offered commensurate cash amount and that was accepted by the Court.
13. The counter argument of the respondent is that the conduct of the relatives of the applicant is worth mentioning. In our opinion, the fact that later on the Court accepted the cash deposit of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of security furnished by the relatives of the applicant does not take the matter any further. Even if that conduct was to be ignored, the basic question is whether there is no material available against the applicant in the charge sheet as already filed. That argument, having been negatived, the next question, is, whether the presence of applicant is required any further by the Investigating Agency. As regards this, the respondents have stated in unambiguous terms that further investigating even against the applicant is going on and for which reason granting bail to the applicant may not be appropriate.
14. The argument of the applicant that there is no possibility of applicant fleeing from the ends of justice or that there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence need not be tested as of now as we are of the opinion that until Investigating Agency is given sufficient time to complete further investigation, releasing the applicant may not be advisable keeping in mind the complexity of the case as the investigating is relating to large scale conspiracy in commission of unfair means during VYAPAM examination. Since there is material to indicate that the applicant had appeared as scorer even in the past as alleged by the prosecution, question of considering his release on bail until completion of investigation in all respects does not arise.
15. The next argument of the applicant is that similarly placed scorers have been granted bail by this Court. For that reliance was placed on the order dated 29-1-2014 in the case of Vikas Singh, who has been named as an accused in the same crime. The order of Vikas Singh, however, proceeds on the sole basis that the trial of case may take some time. No other consideration has been noted in the said order passed by learned Single Judge while granting bail, whereas for the reasons already recorded, the question of granting bail especially when the investigation of the matter of this kind is still incomplete, does not arise.
16. We only hope and trust that the Investigating Agency will expedite the investigation pending against the applicant as he is in custody since 8-2-2014 in connection with this crime and has been in custody from 8-7-2013 in connection with Crime No. 539/2013 in which he has already been released on bail. Accordingly, this application fails and the same is rejected.
