Devendra Pratap Singh Rajpoot vs State of M.P.

Heard

Case Diary is perused.

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of IPC r/w Sec. 3/4 of M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1947 registered as Crime No. 138/2013 at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior.

Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Applicant''s counsel after taking us thorough the petition as well as the annexed papers including the order of rejection of bail by Sessions Court has argued that on taking into consideration the entire evidence collected by the investigating agency available in the case diary is accepted in its entirety even then the ingredients of any of the alleged offence are not made out against the applicant and in such premises he has been falsely implicated in the matter in continuation he said that the present applicant has not committed any such act which comes under the purview of the alleged offences. He also said that the applicant is being implicated in the matter only on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused including the alleged racketeer recorded u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act and as such there is no other evidence in the matter and prayed for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant by allowing this petition. In support of the argument the applicant''s counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sobhran Singh v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 (2) SCC (Cr.) 522. Apart this he also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court delivered in the SLP No. (Criminal) 51/15 whereby the co-accused in the said impugned crime, namely, Arun Yadav has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by such court.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General with the assistance of case diary as well as investigating officer has argued that initially the applicant was extended benefit of bail by the Session Court as stated in the impugned order but subsequently in compliance of the direction of such Court given in the anticipatory bail order he did not cooperate with the Investigation Agency. Apart this some additional evidence involved in the matter so in such premises the aforesaid anticipatory bail granted to the applicant was cancelled and thereafter on filing another application for extending benefit of anticipatory bail the same was refused by the Sessions Court with a speaking order in view of the such speaking order in which various particulars of the case as well as conduct of the applicant has been stated. The applicant does not deserve the extension of benefit of anticipatory bail in continuation he said that in the course of the investigation some committee of the concerning college was constituted.

Learned Advocate General has further argued that before registration of the impugned crime, on receiving some information of the alleged offence a committee to verify the position from the college record was constituted and after holding preliminary inquiry that committee has given the finding against those students whose handwriting and photos on the admission form and the form of the competitive examination of the PMT did not match and on the basis of such report, the Dean, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior reported the matter to the CSP, Jhansi Road, Gwalior vide letter dated 7th December, 2013 on which the impugned crime was registered. The name of the various students were given by the committee in its report and pursuant to that investigation was started in respect of those students including the present applicant also. In the course of the investigation, the concerning record were seized by the Investigating Agency from the concerning college and same was sent to the concerning laboratory for examination and before receiving report on such examination the anticipatory bail was filed on behalf of the applicant before the Sessions Court and then subject to some terms and conditions the applicant was extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in respect of offence under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC read with Section 3/4 M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1947. The applicant was directed to cooperate with the Investigating Agency in conducting investigation with further direction that he shall be available to the Investigating Agency for arrest if the aforesaid examination report comes against is implicative qua the applicant. Subsequently, such report was received from Sagar. After receiving such papers, such papers were against sent to Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat and from the report of laboratory of Gandhi Nagar it was revealed that the photo of the present applicant affixed with application form of the PMT examination did not match with the photo affixed on the admission card of the college, on which the additional offences were added and the applicant was directed to remain present before the Investigating Agency and for that purpose a notice was also given to him. Despite such notice, the applicant did not present himself before the Investigating Officer and in such premises, he has not cooperated with the Investigating Agency in compliance of the earlier direction passed in the anticipatory bail order and approached the Sessions Court for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Taking into consideration of the aforesaid circumstances along with conduct of the applicant as he did not cooperate with the Investigating Agency in compliance of the anticipatory bail order, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the applicant absconded. In order to make his arrest a reward of Rs. 3,000/- was also declared by the Police but till today the Investigating Agency could not apprehend the applicant. He further said that in the available circumstances to carry out the proper verification of the photo and handwriting of the applicant his custodial interrogation is necessary because his photo and the handwriting could be taken only after his arrest and not otherwise. Beside, the interrogation in respect of the alleged offence is also to be carried out from him. If such interrogation is not carried out then the investigation of the case can not be completed properly and hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Having heard the counsel at length and keeping in view the arguments advanced and after perusing the case diary in the available circumstances of the case as argued by the Additional Advocate General on the basis of available evidence in the case diary we have found sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant which requires his custodial interrogation in the matter and especially in respect of photo and the handwriting of the applicant the requisite interrogation of the applicant could not be carried out by the Investigating Agency unless he is arrested by the such agency. Apart the aforesaid, looking to the conduct of the applicant that he has absconded since long even after declaring award for his arrest in compliance of the earlier order of the Sessions Court extending the benefit of anticipatory bail the applicant did not appear before the Investigating Agency to participate in the interrogation, the applicant does not deserve for extending benefit of anticipatory bail.

We are of the view that a person who has already violated the terms and conditions of the anticipatory bail granted earlier in respect of some alleged offence is not entitled again for extending the same benefit even after enhancing the additional offence in the light of the expert report of the laboratory in respect of the photo of the applicant.

Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.