SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(MP) 1687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. K. Gangele, B. D. Rathi, JJ.
Dr. Kuldeep Sarkar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 7443 of 2014
Decided On : 14-11-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. B. Tripathi
For the Respondent: Prabal Solanki

The obligation of the prosecution to conduct proper investigation and find/record statements of involved individuals influenced the court's decision in granting bail.

Headnote:

BAIL - Criminal Procedure Code - sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of IPC and section 3/4 of M. P. Recognized Examination Act - The court discussed the improper investigation of the case, the obligation of the prosecution to find and record statements of the students involved, and the granting of bail based on the completion of investigation and lack of requirement for further presence by the Investigating Officer.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Dr. Kuldeep Sarkar, filed a bail application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code after being arrested in connection with various offenses including sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of IPC and section 3/4 of M. P. Recognized Examination Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the investigation to be improper and highlighted the obligation of the prosecution to find and record statements of the students involved. It also considered the completion of investigation and lack of requirement for further presence by the Investigating Officer in granting bail.

Issues: Improper investigation, obligation of the prosecution to find and record statements of the students involved, completion of investigation, and lack of requirement for further presence by the Investigating Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the improper investigation, the obligation of the prosecution to find and record statements of the students involved, and the completion of investigation with no further requirement for the presence of the Investigating Officer.

Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and complying with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

ORDER :

Shri A. B. Tripathi, Advocate for applicant- Dr. Kuldeep Sarkar.

2. Shri Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for non-applicant/State.

3. They are heard.

4. This is third application under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code filed on behalf of applicant Dr. Kuldeep Sarkar for grant of bail. Earlier two applications (M. Cr. C. Nos. 5921/2014 and 6944/2014) have been dismissed on the ground that at that time, charge-sheet was not filed.

5. As per reply to bail application filed by State, following facts have been mentioned in the reply in opposing the bail :-

6. Applicant has been arrested and is in custody since 25th June, 2014 in connection with Crime No. 449/2013, registered against him at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of IPC and section 3/4 of M. P. Recognized Examination Act.

7. Allegation against the present applicant is that he appeared in PMT Examination on behalf of two students and secured their admission in MBBS Course. Apart from this, it is alleged that applicant had also contacted some students and made available to them question papers. However, name of those students have not been mentioned. Neither their statements have been recorded by the Police.

8. After going through the charge-sheet, in our opinion, investigation of the case is improper. It was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to find out the students against whom it is alleged that applicant had made available to them the question papers. Apart from that, it was also obligatory on the part of the prosecution to record the statements of those students. Applicant is in custody since 25th June, 2014. The Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the case of Sanjeev Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (MP) 560 has granted bail to other accused person against whom allegation is that he secured admission of three students. The Main Seat in Sanjeev Saxena (supra) has passed the following order :-

"Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has been named as accused in connection with Crime No. 18/2013 registered with Police Station- S. T. F., District Bhopal- commonly known as VYAPAM scam cases. 3. The role ascribed to the applicant is that he acted as middleman between three candidates and in association with the main conspirators namely, Nitin Mohindra and Sudhir Sharma indulged in commission of unfair means during the Police Constable Recruitment Examination, 2012. 4. It is, however, not in dispute that the investigation of Crime No. 18/2013 qua the applicant has been completed. His further presence is not required by the Investigating Officer as of now. 5. No doubt, the applicant has been named as accused in three other offences and is shown to be in custody in other two offences so far, however, grant of bail in this matter would not ensure to the applicant in those cases which will have to be considered on its own merits. 6. We agree with the argument of the applicant that the applicant is entitled for parity with the case of Akhilesh Singh Chaturvedi. 7. It has also come on record that the principal accused persons, namely, Nitin Mohindra and Sudhir Sharma, associated with the applicant have been arrested; and three beneficiaries, namely, Durgesh Singh Purbiya, Brajesh Sahu and Bharat Singh Thakur have been enlarged on bail. 8. Since the presence of the applicant is no more required by the Investigating Officer as of now as is stated by the Investigating Officer through counsel for the State, coupled with the fact that the applicant through Counsel has assured that he will extend full cooperation during further investigation in the said case as and when required; and that he will also appear before the Court punctually during the trial, in the interest of justice, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 18/2013 on following strict conditions considering the fact that he is also involved in other three o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top