2015 (2) TMI 1397 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail denied in large medical admission fraud; presumption of innocence acknowledged, trial expedited with March 15, 2015 charge-sheet deadline

Vinod Bhandari Versus State of M.P.

SC upheld trial Ct and HC refusal to grant bail in a large-scale fraudulent medical admission case, noting presumption of innocence but finding strong ... Seeking grant of bail - arranging undeserving candidates to get admission to the M.B.B.S. - Main contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the Appellant has already been in custody for about one year and there is no prospect of commencement of trial in the near future - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Undoubtedly, the offence alleged against the Appellant has serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society. The offence is of high magnitude indicating illegal admission to large number of undeserving candidates to the medical courses by corrupt means. Apart from showing depravity of character and generation of black money, the offence has the potential of undermining the trust of the people in the integrity of medical profession itself. If undeserving candidates are admitted to medical courses by corrupt means, not only the society will be deprived of the best brains treating the patients, the patients will be faced with undeserving and corrupt persons treating them in whom they will find it difficult to repose faith. In these circumstances, when the allegations are supported by material on record and there is a potential of trial being adversely influenced by grant of bail, seriously jeopardising the interest of justice, there are no ground to interfere with the view taken by the trial Court and the High Court in declining bail. It is certainly a matter of serious concern that the Appellant has been in custody for about one year and there is no prospect of immediate trial. When a person is kept in custody to facilitate a fair trial and in the interest of the society, it is duty of the prosecution and the Court to take all possible steps to expedite the trial. Speedy trial is a right of the accused and is also in the interest of justice - the prosecution and the trial Court must ensure speedy trial so that right of the accused is protected. This Court has already directed that the investigation be finally completed and final charge sheet filed on or before March 15, 2015. It is directed that if the trial is not completed within one year from today for reasons not attributable to the Appellant, the Appellant will be entitled to apply for bail afresh to the High Court which may be considered in the light of the situation which may be then prevailing. Appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Bail application dismissal by the High Court.2. Allegations against the appellant in the Vyapam scam.3. Legal principles governing bail applications.4. Delay in trial and its impact on bail considerations.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Bail Application Dismissal by the High Court:The appeal was preferred against the High Court's order dated 11th August 2014, which dismissed the appellant's bail application. The High Court referred to the supplementary challan indicating the appellant's involvement in a conspiracy to facilitate undeserving candidates' admission to medical courses through corrupt means. The High Court observed that the material already placed indicated the appellant's complicity in the crime and noted that the appellant was the kingpin in the conspiracy, involved in huge money transactions, and had the potential to influence witnesses.2. Allegations Against the Appellant in the Vyapam Scam:The Vyapam scam involved the M.P. Professional Examination Board, which conducted various tests for admission to professional courses. The FIR registered on 30th October 2013 alleged that copying was arranged in the PMT Examination 2012 by Vyapam officers and middlemen for monetary consideration. The appellant, as the Managing Director of a medical institute, allegedly received money from candidates through a co-accused to help undeserving candidates pass the MBBS entrance examination. The investigation revealed a conspiracy involving the appellant, who received crores of rupees from candidates. The High Court noted the seriousness of the allegations, which involved depriving deserving students of their rights and impacting human life and health.3. Legal Principles Governing Bail Applications:The judgment discussed several legal principles governing bail applications. It emphasized that pre-conviction, there is a presumption of innocence, and the object of custody is to ensure the accused's availability for trial, not to punish. Factors such as the seriousness of allegations, material support, potential misuse of bail, and the impact of the crime on society were considered. The court referred to precedents like Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, highlighting that delay in trial is a significant factor in bail considerations.4. Delay in Trial and Its Impact on Bail Considerations:The appellant argued that he had been in custody for about a year with no prospect of trial commencement in the near future. The court acknowledged that delay in trial is a factor to be considered and that an accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely if the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time. The court noted that 329 persons had been arrested, and 187 were yet to be arrested, with efforts to file charge sheets by March 15, 2015. The court emphasized the need for speedy trial and directed the prosecution and trial court to ensure the trial proceeds expeditiously. The court also directed that if the trial is not completed within one year, the appellant could apply for bail afresh.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to deny bail, considering the serious allegations and potential impact on society. However, it stressed the importance of a speedy trial and directed monitoring and expeditious proceedings. The court allowed the appellant to reapply for bail if the trial is not completed within a year for reasons not attributable to him. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, ensuring no influence on the trial's merits.