Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P.
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal has been preferred against final judgment and order
dated 11th August, 2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.10371 of 2014 whereby a Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the bail application filed by
the appellant.
3.
Page1
It
appears that there are in all 516 accused out of which 329 persons
Page2
Substantial
investigation has been completed and charge sheets filed but certain
aspects are still being investigated and as per direction of this Court in
a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) . CC No.16456 of 2014
titled Ajay Dubey versus State of M.P. & Ors., final charge sheet is to
be filed by the Special Task Force on or before March 15, 2015 against
the remaining accused. Allegations also include that some high scorer
candidates were arranged in the examination centre who could give
correct answers and the candidates who paid money were permitted to
do the copying. Other modus operandi adopted was to leave the OMR
sheets blank which blank sheets were later filled up with the correct
answers by the corrupt officers of Vyapam. Further, the model answer
key was copied and made available to concerned candidates one night
before the examination. Each candidate paid few lakhs of rupees to
the middlemen and the money was shared by the middlemen with the
officers of the Vyapam. The appellant received few crores of rupees in
the process from undeserving candidates to get admission to the
M.B.B.S. and, as per allegation in the other connected matter, i.e., FIR
No.14 of 2013 registered on 20th November, 2013 with the same police
station, to the PG medical courses.
Page3
4.
5.
The Division Bench of the High Court, in its Order, referred to the
4
Page4
6.
5
Page5
7.
8.
appellant has already been in custody for about one year and there is
no prospect of commencement of trial in the near future.
Even
6
Page6
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the
prayer for grant of bail by submitting that this Court ought not to
interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court and the High
Court in declining bail to the appellant.
Court and the High Court have dealt with the matter having regard to
all the relevant considerations, including the nature of allegations, the
material available, likelihood of misuse of bail and also the impact of
the crime in question on the society. He pointed out that the Courts
below have found that there is a clear prima facie case showing
complicity of the appellant, the offence was punishable with life
sentence, the appellant was the kingpin in the conspiracy, he had the
potential of influencing the witnesses, investigation was still pending
and the appellant had earlier gone abroad to avoid arrest.
7
Page7
10.
points out that in the excel sheet recovered from Nitin Mohindra, the
appellant has been named and in the statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
Delay in
8
Page8
14.
1 (2005) 2 SCC 42
2 (2005) 8 SCC 21
3 (2011) 1 SCC 784
4 (2012) 1 SCC 40
9
Page9
1
Page10
11
Page11
15.
1
Page12
16.
object
of
bail
is
to
secure
the
of
bail
is
neither
punitive
nor
punishment,
unless
it
is
that
punishment
begins
after
that
the
pointing
finger
of
17.
prayer for bail pending trial, we proceed to consider the present case.
Undoubtedly, the offence alleged against the appellant has serious
adverse impact on the fabric of the society.
Apart from
admitted to medical courses by corrupt means, not only the society will
be deprived of the best brains treating the patients, the patients will be
faced with undeserving and corrupt persons treating them in whom
they will find it difficult to repose faith. In these circumstances, when
the allegations are supported by material on record and there is a
potential of trial being adversely influenced by grant of bail, seriously
1
Page14
We are
thus, of the opinion that the prosecution and the trial Court must
ensure speedy trial so that right of the accused is protected.
This
trial will proceed day to day and its progress will be duly monitored.
Material witnesses may be identified and examined at the earliest.
Having regard to special features of this case, we request the High
Court to take up the matter once in three months to take stock of the
progress of trial and to issue such directions as may be necessary. We
also direct that if the trial is not completed within one year from today
for reasons not attributable to the appellant, the appellant will be
1
Page15
entitled to apply for bail afresh to the High Court which may be
considered in the light of the situation which may be then prevailing.
19.
The
appeal
observations.
is
accordingly
disposed
of
with
the
above
J.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 4, 2015
1
Page16