Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
A.M. Khanwilkar, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Sarvesh Kumar Patel - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
MCRC Nos. 2258, 2261, 3158, 3161, 3164, 3165, 3171 and 3173-2015
Decided On : 27-02-2015
VYAPAM Examination Scam - Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act, 2000, M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937 - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 65, 66, 3(d)1, 2/4 - The court dismissed anticipatory bail applications in the VYAPAM Examination Scam Cases, citing strong evidence of complicity, similarity of answers, and failure to respond to investigation notices.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were suspects in the VYAPAM Examination Scam Cases involving various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act, 2000, and M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937. They were accused of aiding and assisting candidates in committing unfair means during the examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found strong evidence of complicity, including similarity of answers and involvement with racketeers. The applicants failed to respond to investigation notices, and their actions were deemed to impede the investigation process.
Issues: The main issue was the involvement of the applicants in the VYAPAM Examination Scam Cases and their eligibility for anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the strong evidence of complicity, similarity of answers, and failure to respond to investigation notices as grounds for dismissing the anticipatory bail applications.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications, stating that if the applicants apply for regular bail after arrest, it will be considered on its own merits.
MCRC No. 2258/2015
1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant who is suspect in Crime No. 539/2013 registered at Police Station STF, Bhopal - commonly known as VYAPAM Examination Scam Cases for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420,467, 468, 471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, section 65, 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and section 3(d)1, 2/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937.
2. The role ascribed to the applicant by the prosecution in the commission of the said offence is of having acted as a Scorer in conspiracy with Racketeer - Sudhir Rai and appeared in the examination conducted by VYAPAM in which he assisted another candidate appearing in the same examination. It is stated that the involvement of applicant has been traced on the basis of material recovered from Sudhir Rai by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. Sudhir Rai is one of the racketeer in the said scam cases involving more than 2000 accused involved in different examinations.
3. The anticipatory bail application of similarly placed persons who hail from Uttar Pradesh and appeared for examination at Indore by giving wrong and misleading residential address in conspiracy with the racketeer and the middleman have been considered yesterday in M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015 and companion cases. Similar modus operandi is noticed in the present crime and about the involvement of the applicant. Besides the other evidence, the strong circumstance for which the investigation against the applicant has become necessary due to similarity of answers given by the two candidates who were sitting in the row - as large as 194 questions out of 200 including 130 right answers and 62 wrong answers. Further, the applicant has failed to respond to the notice given by the Investigating Officer to attend his office for the purpose of investigation. The Investigating Agency is left with no option but to now resort to declaring the applicant as absconding accused to secure his arrest, which process, it is stated will be initiated very shortly.
4. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned in the above stated order dated 26.02.2015 in M.Cr.C. No. 2234/2015 and companion matters, even this application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Ordered accordingly.
MCRC No. 2261/2015, MCRC No. 3164/2015 & MCRC No. 3165/2015
6. The applicants in all these applications are suspect in Crime No. 539/2013 registered at Police Station STF, Bhopal - commonly known as VYAPAM Examination Scam Cases for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, sections 65, 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and section 3(d)1, 2/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937, pertaining to examination conducted in 2012 by VYAPAM.
7. All these applicants are residing outside the State of Madhya Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh/Bihar). They appeared for the Pre-Medical Test examination conducted by VYAPAM. According to the prosecution each of the applicants in conspiracy with the racketeers-Dr. Jagdish Sagar/Sudhir Rai appeared in the examination as Scorers to aid and assist the candidates sitting next to them and committed unfair means during the examination. It has come to the notice of the Investigating Agency on the basis of material collected during the investigation against the racketeers and the middlemen involved in the commission of the crime that each of these applicants had interacted with one or the other middleman/racketeer. Their seat numbers were realigned to ensure that they would be sitting near the candidate who would be assisted in commission of unfair means during the examination. The modus operandi in commission of this crime and about the involvement of each of these applicants who acted as scorers is identical as in the case of other scorers who hail from other States.
8. The similarity of answers given by the applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 2261/2015 and the beneficiary is found matching to the extent of 183 answers ou
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
