Bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of the charge sheet, and supplementary investigation against all co-accused must be completed before considering bail.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1. On behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner as he is in custody since 11/9/2014 in connection with Crime No. 285/2014 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences under sections 419, 420,467, 468, 471, and 120-B of IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of the MP Recognised Examination Act.

2. Petitioner's counsel after taking us through the papers placed on record along with the impugned rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that the petitioner has been implicated in the matter by making false allegations only on the basis of memorandum of other co-accused recorded under section27 of the Evidence Act which could not be said to be a foundation to draw any inference against the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner did not act as a middleman or part of racketeers to secure admission of any of the alleged students in the medical course. He further said that initially FIR was registered on the basis of a report in writing of the Committee of the College against eight persons and subsequently, the petitioner and other co-accused have been implicated by preparing memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused. In continuation, he said that in respect of the alleged allegations, no documentary evidence like OMR sheets or other papers have been placed with the charge sheet, so in the lack of it, no inference could be drawn against the petitioner. In any case, after filing charge sheet in the matter against the petitioner, there is no requirement to keep him in jail custody, even if supplementary investigation is being carried out against other co-accused in the matter. He also apprised us that with respect to the alleged illegal admission of students Rakesh Jain and Rahul Jain, he has been implicated in two different crime numbers which is not permissible under law, because as per settled proposition of law, an accused could not be prosecuted twice for one illegal act in two different cases. In support of such contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench in the matter of Raghuraj Pratap Singh v. State of MP, 2006(I) MPHT 222 and said that although said judgment was not based on the sections of the impugned offence herein, but in any case, the principle laid down in that case is applicable to the present matter to consider the prayer of the petitioner to extend benefit of bail and prayed to allow this petition.

3. On the other hand, opposing the prayer with the assistance of the case diary and by referring to the copy of the charge sheet, State Counsel argued that the petitioner was working in the alleged scam/racket to secure admission in the medical course in illegal manner since long and as per available record, he has managed the illegal admission of some of the students in the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. He further said that as per available evidence, such illegal admissions were secured for the concerning students in consideration of money in lakhs and, in such premises, petitioner being a racketeer in the alleged scam has not only committed the offences defined in the books, but has also broken the established system of competitive examination of PMT and thereby created a situation in which the bona fide and genuine students who appeared in the alleged competitive examination of PMP on the basis of their own labour and study could not get success at their proper age to make their future in medical field. He further said that mere filing of the charge sheet is not sufficient to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner because supplementary investigation of the impugned crime against so many accused persons is being carried out and if the petitioner is released on bail, then he being an influential person and part of the racket, may seriously prejudice the prosecution at the stage of supplementary investigation. So far as ca