The cooperation of the petitioner in the investigation and the lack of requirement for custodial interrogation were key factors in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT :

Heard through video conferencing.

1. This is first application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 109, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937, based on registration of FIR 138/13 dated 19/4/2013 by Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior (M.P.).

3. Petitioner apprehends arrest in respect of offence of cheating and forgery arising out of allegation that petitioner has appeared as solver in place of co-accused candidate in PMT Examination 2009.

4. It is submitted that petitioner was summoned by CBI for first time in 2017 when he appeared, whereafter continued to appear as and when CBI summoned him for giving his statement and as well as his signature and handwriting sample. It is stated that petitioner is presently working as Medical Officer in Govt. Hospital at Delhi and he is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions as imposed by this court.

5. Per contra, learned ASGI for respondent CBI submits that petitioner had wrongly shown himself to be a student in the cause-title of bail application before trial court whereas in High court he has shown himself to be a Medical Officer. Learned ASGI objects to bail by submitting that co-accused Brijesh Singh Raghuvanshi in whose place petitioner had appeared, is still absconding.

5.1. Learned ASGI places reliance on the order dated 21/10/2020 in M.Cr.C. No. 35575/2020 [Pritesh Singh Vs. Union of India through C.B.I.] in which coordinate bench of this court at the principal seat at Jabalpur while considering bail application of accused alleged with offence similar to the one alleged herein held that an order of coordinate bench of granting bail to co-accused cannot be binding especially when said order of grant of bail does not contain reasons and reflect that relevant consideration for grant of bail have not been taken into account while granting bail.

5.2. The decision of Apex court in the case of Mauji Ram v. the State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 17 has also been relied upon by the prosecution to contend that an order of bail without reasons as regards relevant factors which need to be considered while deciding bail petition renders the order of bail vulnerable and denuded of precedential value.

5.3. There can be no dispute as regards ratio laid down by the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned ASGI but the same are of no avail to prosecution since this court is assigning enough cogent reasons infra to save this order from being sacrificed at the alter of the aforesaid verdicts.

5.4. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the record including reply filed by CBI the fact which comes out loud and clear is that CBI does not deny that petitioner has cooperated in investigation which has culminated in filing of charge-sheet on 5/12/2020 and also that there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The only objection of learned ASGI is of wrong description of petitioner before the trial court as a student whereas in fact petitioner is a Medical Officer. This objection does not appeal to this court as the said mistake of mentioning student before trial court can be attributed to typographical error and that petitioner has been rightly described as Medical Officer herein.

6. The other objection of CBI is that co-accused Brijesh Singh Raghuvanshi is still absconding. The factum of co-accused being absconding can be a relevant factor for rejection of bail application in case there is material to show that if bail is granted then possibility of absconding co-accused being arrested is bleak. In the instant case there is no such material brought forth by CBI.

6.1. As regards gravity of offence, it is seen that though allegation relates to offence which is against society at large, but said factor of gravity of offence is diluted by the fact of petitioner having cooperated in investigation. More so, ma