A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ.

1. This is first bail application by this applicant in Crime No. 14/2013 registered with S.T.F. Police Station, Bhopal for offences commonly known as VYAPAM examination scam cases, punishable under Sections 409,420, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3 (Gha), 1, 2/5 of M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937.

2. The role ascribed to the applicant by the prosecution is that he acted as middleman to facilitate candidate (Dr. Prakhar Singhal). That candidate had appeared in the examination conducted by VYAPAM for Pre.P.G. Medical Course and allegedly indulged in unfair means during the said examination, in conspiracy with the racketeers involved in the crime. The applicant was called upon by the Investigating Officer vide notice dated 26.11.2014, to remain present in connection with enquiry concerning Crime No. 14/2013. According to the applicant, in response to the said notice, applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer and extended full cooperation in the enquiry and disclosed all facts within his knowledge. The applicant was questioned extensively by the Investigating Officer. It is further stated that since the Investigating Officer was convinced with the explanation and the disclosures made by the applicant, no precipitative action was taken against him. However, when the applicant apprehended that he may be arrested in connection with the said crime, applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. That anticipatory bail was rejected on 11.02.2015.

3. The applicant then rushed to the High Court against that decision by way of bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being M.Cr.C. No. 3440/2015. That application was rejected by a speaking order dated 24.03.2015. The Court accepted the argument of the prosecution that the applicant was not cooperating in the enquiry and that the Investigating Officer was convinced that the custodial interrogation of the applicant had become necessary. The Court observed thus:--

"It is, fairly, accepted by the counsel for the State that as of today from the information gathered by the Investigating Officer, it appears that both these applicants were concerned only with Prakhar - one candidate. However, unless the investigation of Crime No. 14/2013 is completed in all respects, it may not be possible to take any firm view in that regard. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the liberty given to applicants to appear before the Investigating Officer, they had appeared in the Office of the Investigating Officer on 12 & 14th March, 2015, for 13 hours 59 minutes in aggregate in M.Cr.C. No. 3441/2015 and 13 hours 44 minutes in aggregate in the case of applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 3440/2015. However, according to the Investigating Officer, the interrogation with the applicants was not fruitful as no further clues have been divulged by them during the said period. In view of the attitude of the applicants during the said interrogation, the Investigating Officer is convinced that custodial interrogation of the applicants has become necessary. Besides the phone call details made between the applicants and the middleman/racketeer, the Investigating Officer would like to interrogate the applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 3440/2015 with regard to the information received from the computer details recovered from Nitin Mohindra mentioning about payments by separate cheques and cash amount as well as on matters as to how the applicants received the question papers in advance in connection with the said examination and the source from where the same were received and in respect of matters which unfolded after receipt of the said papers. The correct information can be unraveled by the Investigating Officer only on the basis of the custodial interrogation and confronting the two applicants in the said process."

(emphasis supplied)

4. Against this decision the applicant unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal before the