The court discussed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Information Technology Act, and their application to the case. The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, and Ms. Mayawati vs. Union of India and others, and their interpretations in the context of issuing non-bailable warrants and the jurisdiction of the CBI.

HEMANT GUPTA, CJ.

1. Challenge in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) is to an order dated 23.11.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (CBI), Bhopal in Case No.ST/9500317/2014 wherein cognizance of the offence registered as Crime No.RC2172015A0025 has been taken and warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged an order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure A-2) whereby application for cancellation of warrant of arrest was declined.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 30.10.2013, an offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 3-D (1) and (2) and 4 of the M.P. Recognised Examination Act, 1937 was registered as Crime No.12/2013 by the Special Task Force, Bhopal constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of irregularities committed in Pre-Medical Test-2012 (for short “PMT-2012”) conducted by M.P. Professional Examination Board (for short “the VYAPAM”).

3. Later, the investigations were taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”). The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 11.11.2017 (Annexure A-3) received by him on 21.11.2017 that a charge-sheet shall be filed on 23.11.2017 in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal. The charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with 120-B of IPC; Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 43 read with 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 3-D (1) and (2) and 4 of the M.P. Recognised Examination Act, 1937 was filed on 23.11.2017, but, since the petitioner did not appear on the said date, the learned Special Judge, issued non-bailable warrants. It is at that stage, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the non-bailable warrant, which stood declined. The petitioner also applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code, which also stands declined vide order passed on 23.11.2017 (Annexure A-19) in Bail Application No.4002/2017 (Dr. S.N. Vijaywargiya and another vs. State of M.P. Through CBI, Bhopal). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second application for grant of anticipatory bail, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure A-20) passed in Bail Application No.9604139/2017 (S.N. Vijaywargiya vs. CBI, Bhopal).

4. As per the orders passed by the learned Special Judge, the petitioner is Chairman of People's Medical College, Bhopal. The allegation against the petitioner is that the People's Medical College, Bhopal has given wrong information in respect of vacant seats relating to PMT-2102 admission process to the Director, Medical Education, Bhopal with the dishonest intention and illegally admitted Anugrah Verma, Mohd. Sajid, Brijesh Kumar Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Patel, whose real name is Sandeep Kumar and Virendra Kumar. After giving wrong information, the College admitted ineligible candidates, namely, Shweta Jadav, Deepesh Dubey, Neha Batra and Karishma Singhai. The learned Special Judge held that the petitioner has been charged for an offence under Section 467 of the IPC for which the punishment is life imprisonment or a punishment for a period of 10 years. Since the allegations are serious and that it is not a case of “no evidence”, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of concession of anticipatory bail. It may be stated that the applications for grant of anticipatory bail by the office bearers of People's Medical College were declined vide orders dated 14.12.2017 in MCRC No.25107/2017 (Dr. Vijay Kumar Pandya vs. Union of India through CBI) and MCRC No.25158/2017 (Dr. Vijay Kumar Ramnani vs. Union of India through CBI).

5. The argume