1. Heard counsel for the parties.

M.Cr.C. No. 8016/2015

2. This application is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 539/2013 registered with Police Station S.T.F., Bhopal - commonly known as VYAPAM examination scam cases - for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B of IPC, section 25/27 of Arms Act, section 65 of the I.T. Act and Section 3(Gha) 1, 2/4 of the M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937.

3. The role ascribed to the applicant is that the applicant arranged for the Scorer - Ashutosh Maurya and introduced him to Vikas Singh, who was asked to arrange for the impersonator by the candidate - Sehar Kirmani appearing in the VYAPAM examination.

4. According to the applicant, the fact that applicant was familiar to Ashutosh Maurya and merely because he introduced him to Vikas Singh cannot be the basis to proceed against the applicant without anything more. This argument clearly overlooks that the Investigating Agency may have to inquire into all aspects of the matter for which the applicant must cooperate.

5. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact that Ashutosh Maurya had appeared as impersonator and it has been noticed from the material already collected by the Investigating Agency that he had no prior contact with Vikas Singh and that the applicant was responsible for arranging the meeting between Ashutosh Maurya and Vikas Singh, these circumstances raise reasonable suspicion about the involvement of the applicant, which matters will have to be inquired into by the Investigating Agency.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would then submit that the role of the applicant is similar to the role of accused to whom interim protection has been granted by the Supreme Court and also by this Court in several other cases.

7. This submission, in our opinion, is untenable. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that the role of the applicant is different than the role of the accused, who have been granted such protection. The role of these applicants is of Scorers and not of middlemen. The role of applicant prima facie appears to be one of a middleman, having arranged for the impersonator, to appear in the examination in place of original candidate pursuant to the request made by Vikas Singh - the middleman, who acted on behalf of the original candidate.

8. Considering the above, the applicant is not entitled for similar relief as has been granted to Scorers in other cases. Learned counsel for the applicant would then submit that the applicant is expected to appear in the examination to be conducted by the University at Itawa (Uttar Pradesh) on 29.06.2015. That cannot be the basis to stall the investigation which is ordered to be completed by July 15th, 2015 by the Supreme Court. The investigation can meaningfully proceed only if the applicant is interrogated and as suggested by the Investigating Officer that his custodial interrogation may become necessary if the applicant fails to reveal the relevant information concerning the modus of commission of the alleged offence.

9. The applicant is free to appear before the Investigating Officer; and if the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that the applicant has revealed all the relevant information and was not involved in the commission of the offence in any manner, there is no reason why the Investigating Officer would proceed against the applicant.

10. In our opinion, therefore, grant of anticipatory bail in the fact situation of the present case will be a misplaced sympathy shown to the applicant particularly when the Supreme Court has already directed the Investigating Agency (STF) to conclude the investigation in all such cases before 15th July, 2015 and submit police reports in the concerned crimes. If indulgence is shown to the applicant, as suggested, there will be no way for the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation of the crime in ques

Click Here to Read the rest of this document