Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
SHEEL NAGU, J.
PRATAP SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MP - Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 2643 of 2015
Decided on : 14-07-2015
Anticipatory Bail - Offences under IPC and M.P. Recognized Examination Act - Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the fundamental right of personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, the interpretation of 'procedure established by law' under Article 21, and the scope and limitation of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. The court also emphasized the need for fair and just procedure and the discretion of the court in granting anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, father of a co-accused, sought anticipatory bail in connection with offences under IPC and M.P. Recognized Examination Act. The confessional statement of the co-accused was the only evidence linking the applicant to the alleged crime. The court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the evidence collected, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the potential prejudice to the petitioner in case of arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence collected against the applicant was not enough to sustain a conviction, and there was no possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice. The court also highlighted the obligation of the police to issue summons before resorting to arrest, as emphasized in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C., subject to stringent conditions.
Issues: The court addressed the nature and gravity of the accusation, the evidence collected, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the potential prejudice to the petitioner in case of arrest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the evidence, the obligation of the police to issue summons before arrest, and the discretion of the court in granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to stringent conditions, and concurred with the view taken by the esteemed brother M.C. Garg, J. while respectfully differing with the view taken by the esteemed brother U.C. Maheshwari, J.
SHEEL NAGU, J.
1. On account of difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Judges comprising the Division Bench on 24.06.2015, this case has been placed before me after obtaining administrative sanction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Chapter-IV Rule 11 of the M.P. High Court Rules and Orders, 2008.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard and the case diary in question is perused.
3. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act registered as Crime No. 392/2014 at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior.
4. Basic facts giving rise to the present first anticipatory bail application are that after registration of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the M.P. Recognized Examination Act bearing Crime No. 392/2014, Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior against co-accused Darshan Singh (son of the petitioner) a disclosure was made by the said co-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that his father (petitioner) gave a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- to one Gyan Singh (middle man) for arranging a Solver to appear in place of co-accused Darshan Singh in the Pre-Medical Test of 2008 conducted by the M.P. Board of Professional Examination (for brevity "VYAPAM"). On this revelation by co-accused Darshan Singh (son of the petitioner), the instant offences are registered against the petitioner. Whereas the Solver, who is said to have appeared in place of co-accused Darshan Singh in the said examination, has not yet been traced out. The applicant indisputably holds the post of Chief Municipal Officer.
5. The principal reasons assigned by both the dissenting Hon'ble Judges are as follows:--
"5.1. Brother U.C. Maheshwari, J. has declined grant of anticipatory bail primarily on the following grounds:--
(1) The offences alleged are serious in nature as besides depriving the genuine students, it belies the trust reposed by people at large in examining bodies for professional courses. Further, the pure and unadulterated stream of academic excellence is sullied. Also that the conduct of petitioner is anti-merit;
(2) The provision of Section 438, Cr.P.C. is not meant to protect serious offenders where false implication is not prima-facie evident;
(3) Co-accused Solver is yet to be apprehended and therefore custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative notwithstanding the death of co-accused Gyan Singh (middle man);
(4) The anticipatory bail granted to similarly placed students and parents by the Apex Court are not binding for having no precedential value.
5.2. On the other hand, Brother M.C. Garg J. while allowing the instant anticipatory bail application assigned the following reasons:--
(1) The confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of co-accused Darshan Singh (son of the petitioner), which has not led to any recovery, is the only piece of implicative evidence collected by the prosecution to link the applicant with the crime alleged;
(2) The confessional statement made by the co-accused Darshan Singh in police custody in absence of any recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is inadmissible in evidence;
(3) Co-accused Cyan Singh (middle man) having died, the only link between the applicant and his complicity is broken;
(4) The orders of anticipatory bail have been passed in cases involving similar circumstances by the Principal Bench of this Court and also by the Apex Court;
(5) The applicant is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Agency in the process of investigation of the crime alleged;
(6) The applicant was never called upon by the Police Authorities to join investigation and therefore non-cooperation on his part cannot be presumed, thereby rendering the plea of applicant's non-cooperation, inconsequential;
(7) The applicant is a government servant being Chief Municipal Officer and thus there is no
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
