The importance of gravity of the offence, the accused's cooperation in the investigation, and the principle of presumption of innocence are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. Heard through video conferencing.

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

3. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 201, 204, 408, 419, 420, 468, 471, 477-A IPC., Ss. 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1988 and Ss. 4/3D (1)(2) of M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 registered as RC2172015S0009 pending before IV Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CBI (VYAPAM), Gwalior (M.P.).

4. Petitioner is alleged with offence of cheating and forgery where he is alleged to be mastermind behind VYAPAM scam being Secretary of Managing Committee by trading seats followed by admission to Chirayu Medical College, Bhopal in PMT Examination 2011.

5. CBI has filed reply disclosing that charge-sheet in the matter regarding petitioner has been filed including other co-accused on 7/1/2021. Reply further reveals that petitioner has cooperated with CBI in the process of investigation.

6. However, learned counsel for CBI objects to grant of bail by relying upon decision of coordinate bench of this court at Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Dr. Divya Kishore Satpathi & others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2018(IV) MPJR 154 (para 27) and submits that in such nature of offence anticipatory bail should not be granted. CBI has also disclosed in reply that in another offence arising out of YYAPAM scam qua the petitioner bearing Crime No. RC2172015A0025 in M.P. PMT 2012 he was declined anticipatory bail by DB-I at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur on 14/12/2017 as MCRC No. 24983/2017, which according to learned counsel for CBI was attended with circumstances similar to the one which is pending adjudication.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner has filed rejoinder vide Document No. 1341/21 inter alia revealing that after rejection of anticipatory bail by Principal Seat in the aforesaid offence, petitioner was arrested on 31/1/2018 but thereafter by order dated 7/3/2018 in Mcrc. 8480/2018 (Annexure-R/6) bail application u/Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. of petitioner was allowed by DB-I at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur.

8. It is not disputed by CBI that investigation qua petitioner is over by filing charge-sheet on 7/1/2021 and therefore custodial interrogation is no more required. CBI also does not dispute that petitioner has cooperated in investigation as and when summoned by Investigating Agency.

9. The principle laid down by Apex Court including the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 SCC 694 and subsequent decisions not only emphasize the importance of gravity of offence but also the attribute of accused cooperating in investigation and trial as one of the persuading considerations while exercising jurisdiction u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, petitioner as is evident from reply of CBI has appeared as and when required during investigation. Thus, sending petitioner to custody in the given facts would be akin to punishing him for the offence which is yet to be established thereby violating the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence i.e. "presumption of innocence".

10. Among few important factors to be considered while deciding application for anticipatory bail are gravity of offence and also conduct of accused in cooperating in investigation and the prospects of doing so in future and also in trial. Apex court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) in somewhat similar situation came to hold:-

"89. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be av