Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.7506 OF 2014)

DR. VINOD BHANDARI                                                …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P.                                             …RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against final judgment and order  

dated 11th August, 2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  

at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.10371 of 2014 whereby a Division  

Bench  of  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  bail  application  filed  by   

the appellant.   

3. M.P. Vyavsayik Pareeksha Mandal (M.P. Professional Examination  

Board)  known  as  Vyapam  conducts  various  tests  for  admission  to  

professional courses and streams.  It is a statutory body constituted  

under the provisions of M.P. Professional Examination Board Act, 2007.  

As per FIR No.12 of 2013 registered on 30th October, 2013 at police  

station, S.T.F., Bhopal under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the  

Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) read with Section 3(d), 1, 2/4 of the Madhya

Page 2

Pradesh Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937 and under Sections  

65  and  66  of  the  I.T.  Act,  Shri  D.S.  Baghel,  DSP  (STF),  M.P.  Police  

Headquarters, Bhopal during the investigation of another case found  

that copying was arranged in PMT Examination, 2012 at the instance of  

concerned officers of the Vyapam and middlemen who for monetary  

consideration helped the undeserving students to pass the entrance  

examination to get admission to the M.B.B.S course in Government and  

Private  Medical  Colleges  in  the  State  of  M.P.   As  per  the  material  

collected  during  investigation,  in  pursuance  of  conspiracy,  the  

appellant  Dr.  Vinod  Bhandari,  who is  the  Managing  Director  of  Shri  

Aurbindo Institute of Medical Sciences,  Indore, received money from  

the  candidates  through  co-accused  Pradeep  Raghuvanshi  who  was  

working in  Bhandari  Hospital  &  Research  Centre,  Indore  as  General  

Manager  and  who  was  also  looking  after  the  admissions  and  

management  work  of  Shri  Aurbindo  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences,  

Indore, for arranging the undeserving candidates to pass through the  

MBBS Entrance Examination by unfair  means.   He gave part  of  the  

money to Nitin Mohindra, Senior Systems Analyst in Vyapam, who was  

the custodian of the model answer key, along with Dr. Pankaj Trivedi,  

Controller of Vyapam.  During investigation, disclosure statement was  

made by Pradeep Raghuvanshi which led to the recovery of money and  

documents.   The  candidates,  their  guardians,  some  officers  of  the  

Vyapam and middlemen were found to be involved in the scam.  It  

appears that there are in all 516 accused out of which 329 persons

Page 3

have  been  arrested  and  187  are  due  to  be  arrested.   Substantial  

investigation has been completed and charge sheets filed but certain  

aspects are still being investigated and as per direction of this Court in  

a Petition for Special  Leave to Appeal (C) …. CC No.16456 of  2014  

titled “Ajay Dubey versus State of M.P. & Ors.”, final charge sheet is to  

be filed by the Special Task Force on or before March 15, 2015 against  

the remaining accused.   Allegations also include that some high scorer  

candidates were arranged in the examination centre who could give  

correct answers and the candidates who paid money were permitted to  

do the copying.  Other modus operandi adopted was to leave the OMR  

sheets blank which blank sheets were later filled up with the correct  

answers by the corrupt officers of Vyapam. Further, the model answer  

key was copied and made available to concerned candidates one night  

before the examination.  Each candidate paid few lakhs of rupees to  

the middlemen and the money was shared by the middlemen with the  

officers of the Vyapam.  The appellant received few crores of rupees in  

the  process  from  undeserving  candidates  to  get  admission  to  the  

M.B.B.S. and, as per allegation in the other connected matter, i.e., FIR  

No.14 of 2013 registered on 20th November, 2013 with the same police  

station, to the PG medical courses.

Page 4

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

4. In the present case, the appellant was arrested on 30th January,  

2014 while in the other FIR he was granted anticipatory bail on 16th  

January, 2014.  Second Bail application of the appellant in the present  

case was considered by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal and  

dismissed vide Order dated 9.5.2014.  Earlier, first bail application had  

been dismissed on 5th February, 2014.  While declining prayer for bail,  

it was, inter-alia, observed :

“In  the present  case,  it  is  alleged against   the accused that he in connivance with the   officers of coordinator State level institution  (VYAPAM)  in  lieu  of  huge  amount  got  the  candidates  selected  in  the  examination  after getting them passed in the Pre-Medical  Test (PMT) Examination, which is mandatory  and important for admission in the medical   education  institution.   According  to  the  prosecution,  applicant  snatched  right  of   deserving  and  scholar  students,  he  got   selected ineligible candidates in the field of   medical  education.   This  case  is  not  only   related  to  economic  offence,  rather  apart   from  depriving  rights  of  deserving  and  scholar students, it is related to the human  life and health.”

5. The Division Bench of the High Court, in its Order, referred to the  

supplementary  challan filed against the appellant on 24th April, 2014,  

indicating the following material :

“Offence of the accused : The accused Dr.  Vinod Bhandari  has  been  the Managing Director of S.A.I.M.S., Indore  and prior to the P.M.T. Examination 2012 he  had in collusion with Nitin Mohindra, Senior   System  Analyst  of  Vyapam,  for  getting  some of his candidates passed in the P.M.T.   Examination, 2012 and stating to send list   of his candidates and cash amount through  

4

Page 5

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

his General Manager Pradeep Raghuvanshi,   subsequently  he  sent  list  of  his  08   candidates  and  60  lakh  rupees  in  cash   through  his  General  Manager  and  07  candidates out of aforesaid candidates were  got passed by using unfair means with the  connivance  of  Nitin  Mohindra  by  way  of   filling up the circles in their  O.M.R. sheets   and received the amount in illegally manner   by  hatching  conspiracy  which  has  been  recovered/seized from his General Manager   Pradeep Raghuvanshi.  In this manner, the  accused has committed a serious crime in   well  designed  conspiracy  by  hatching   conspiracy and committed organized crime. Evidences available against the accused :-

1. The certified copy of the excel sheet   of the data retrieved  from  the  hard  disc seized from the office  of  the  accused Nitin Mohindra; 2. The documents, note sheets and the   activity chart  of  P.M.T.  Examination,  2012 seized from Vyapam; 3. The list of 150 candidates seized from  Shri Aurbindo  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences College, Indore in respect of  M.B.B.S. admission for the session  2012- 13 at the instanced of the accused  Dr.  Bhandari; 4. Memorandums  of  other  accused  persons; 5. The  seizure  memo  of  the  amount  seized from Pradeep Raghuvanshi.”

6. While declining bail, the High Court observed :

“To  put  it  differently  after  considering  all   aspects  of  the  matter  as  the  material   already placed along with the first charge- sheet prima facie indicates complicity of the   applicant  in  the  commission  of  the  crime  and is not a case of no evidence against the  applicant at all; coupled with the fact that if   the charge is proved against the applicant,   the offence is punishable with life sentence;   as the role of the applicant is being part of   the  conspiracy  and is  the  kingpin;  further  that  the  applicant  is  allegedly  involved  in   huge  money  transaction  including  to  

5

Page 6

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

sponsor 8 candidates who were to appear in   the  VYAPAM  examination;  and  is  also   prosecuted  for  another  offence  of  similar   type  of  having  sponsored  8  other  candidates;  and  has  the  potential  of   influencing  the  witnesses  and  other   evidence  and  more  importantly  the  investigation of the large scale conspiracy is   still incomplete; as also keeping in mind the   past  conduct  of  the  applicant  in  going   abroad  soon  after  the  registration  of  the  Crime  No.12/2013  and  returning  back  to   India  on  21.1.2014  only  after  grant  of   anticipatory bail on 16.1.2014, for all these  reasons,  for  the time being,  the applicant   cannot  be  admitted  to  the  privilege  of   regular bail.”

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. 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.   Even  

investigation  is  not  likely  to  be  completed  before  March  15,  2015.  

There  are  about  516  accused  and  large  number  of  witnesses  and  

documents.  Thus, the trial will take long time.  In these circumstances,  

the appellant cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period before his  

guilt is established by acceptable evidence.  Our attention has been  

invited to order dated 27th November, 2014 passed by the trial Court,  

recording the request of the Special Public Prosecutor for deferring the  

proceedings of the case till the cases of other accused against whom  

supplementary charge sheets were filed were committed to the Court  

of  Session  and  till  supplementary  charge  sheet  was  filed  against  

several other accused persons.  In the said order, the Court directed  

6

Page 7

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

the Investigating Officer to indicate as to against how many accused  

persons investigation is pending and the time frame for filing charge  

sheets/supplementary charge sheets.  In response to the said order,  

the Investigating Officer, vide letter dated 25th December, 2014 filed  

before  the  trial  Court,  stated  that  329  persons  had  already  been  

arrested and 187 were yet to be arrested and efforts were being made  

to  file  the  charge  sheets  by  March  15,  2015  in  compliance  of  the  

directions  of  this  Court.   Thus,  the  submission  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant is that in view of delay in trial, the appellant was entitled to  

bail.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel  for the State opposed the  

prayer  for  grant  of  bail  by  submitting  that  this  Court  ought  not  to  

interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court and the High  

Court in declining bail to the appellant.  He points out that the trial  

Court and the High Court have dealt with the matter having regard to  

all the relevant considerations, including the nature of allegations, the  

material available, likelihood of misuse of bail and also the impact of  

the crime in question on the society.  He pointed out that the Courts  

below  have  found  that  there  is  a  clear  prima  facie  case  showing  

complicity  of  the  appellant,  the  offence  was  punishable  with  life  

sentence, the appellant was the kingpin in the conspiracy, he had the  

potential of influencing the witnesses, investigation was still pending  

and the appellant had earlier gone abroad to avoid arrest.

7

Page 8

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

10.  Referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, he  

points out that in the excel sheet recovered from Nitin Mohindra, the  

appellant has been named and in the statement under Section 164  

Cr.P.C.   Dr.  Moolchand  Hargunani  disclosed  that  he  had  met  the  

appellant who asked him to meet Pradeep Raghuvanshi for admission  

to PMT and he was asked to pay Rs.20 lakhs.  He could not pay the  

said amount and his son could not get the admission.  A sum of Rs.50  

lakh for PMT Examination and 1.2 crores for Pre PG Examination, 2012  

was received from Pradeep Raghuvanshi who was General  Manager of  

the appellant’s hospital and in charge of admission to the institute of  

the appellant.

11. We have given due consideration to the rival  submissions and  

perused the material on record.

12. 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.  

Reference may be made to decisions of this Court in Kalyan Chandra  

8

Page 9

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan  1  , State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi  2  ,  

State of Kerala vs. Raneef  3   and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI  4  .

13. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), it was observed :

“8. It  is  trite  law  that  personal  liberty   cannot be taken away except in accordance  with  the  procedure  established  by  law.   Personal  liberty  is  a  constitutional   guarantee.  However,  Article  21  which  guarantees  the  above  right  also  contemplates deprivation of personal liberty   by procedure established by law. Under the  criminal  laws  of  this  country,  a  person   accused of offences which are non-bailable  is  liable  to  be  detained  in  custody  during  the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged  on  bail  in  accordance  with  law.  Such  detention  cannot  be  questioned  as  being   violative  of  Article  21  since  the  same  is   authorised  by  law.  But  even  persons  accused  of  non-bailable  offences  are   entitled to bail if the court concerned comes   to the conclusion that the prosecution has   failed to establish a prima facie case against   him  and/or  if  the  court  is  satisfied  for   reasons to be recorded that in spite of the   existence  of  prima  facie  case  there  is  a   need to release such persons on bail where   fact  situations  require  it  to  do so.  In  that   process  a  person  whose  application  for   enlargement on bail is once rejected is not   precluded  from  filing  a  subsequent   application  for  grant  of  bail  if  there  is  a   change in the fact situation. In such cases if   the  circumstances  then  prevailing  require   that  such  persons  be  released  on  bail,  in   spite  of  his  earlier  applications  being  rejected, the courts can do so.”

14. In Amarmani Tripathi (supra), it was observed :

18. It is well settled that the matters to be   considered in an application for bail are (i)  

1 (2005) 2 SCC 42 2 (2005) 8 SCC 21 3 (2011) 1 SCC 784 4 (2012) 1 SCC 40

9

Page 10

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

whether  there  is  any  prima  facie  or   reasonable  ground  to  believe  that  the  accused  had  committed  the  offence;  (ii)   nature  and  gravity  of  the  charge;  (iii)  severity of the punishment in the event of   conviction;  (iv)  danger  of  the  accused  absconding  or  fleeing,  if  released  on  bail;   (v)  character,  behaviour,  means,  position  and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood  of  the  offence  being  repeated;  (vii)   reasonable  apprehension  of  the  witnesses  being tampered with;  and (viii)  danger,  of  course, of justice being thwarted by grant of   bail [see  Prahlad  Singh  Bhati v.  NCT,  Delhi[(2001)  4  SCC  280] and  Gurcharan  Singh v.  State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC  118].  While  a  vague  allegation  that  the  accused may tamper with the evidence or   witnesses  may not  be  a  ground to  refuse  bail, if the accused is of such character that   his mere presence at large would intimidate  the witnesses or if there is material to show  that he will use his liberty to subvert justice   or tamper with the evidence, then bail will   be  refused.  We  may  also  refer  to  the  following  principles  relating  to  grant  or   refusal  of  bail  stated  in  Kalyan  Chandra  Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528]:  (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11)

“11. The law in regard to grant or   refusal of bail is very well settled.   The  court  granting  bail  should   exercise  its  discretion  in  a   judicious  manner  and  not  as  a  matter of  course.  Though at the  stage of granting bail  a detailed   examination  of  evidence  and  elaborate  documentation  of  the  merit  of  the  case  need  not  be  undertaken,  there  is  a  need  to  indicate  in  such  orders  reasons   for  prima  facie  concluding  why  bail  was  being  granted  particularly where the accused is   charged  of  having  committed  a  serious offence. Any order devoid  of such reasons would suffer from  non-application of mind. It is also  

1

Page 11

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

necessary for  the court  granting  bail  to  consider  among  other  circumstances,  the  following  factors also before granting bail;   they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and  the  severity  of  punishment  in  case of conviction and the nature   of supporting evidence. (b)  Reasonable  apprehension  of   tampering  with  the  witness  or  apprehension  of  threat  to  the  complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the  court  in  support  of  the  charge.   (See  Ram  Govind  Upadhyay v.  Sudarshan  Singh  [(2002)  3  SCC  598]] and  Puran v.  Rambilas  [(2001) 6 SCC 338.)”

22. While  a  detailed  examination  of  the  evidence is to be avoided while considering  the question of bail, to ensure that there is   no  prejudging  and  no  prejudice,  a  brief   examination  to  be  satisfied  about  the   existence or otherwise of a prima facie case   is necessary. An examination of the material   in this case, set out above, keeping in view  the  aforesaid  principles,  disclose  prima  facie, the existence of a conspiracy to which   Amarmani  and  Madhumani  were  parties.   The contentions of the respondents that the  confessional statement of Rohit Chaturvedi   is  inadmissible  in  evidence and that  that   should be excluded from consideration, for   the purpose of bail is untenable. This Court   had  negatived  a  somewhat  similar   contention in  Kalyan Chandra Sarkar thus:  (SCC p. 538, para 19)

“19.  The  next  argument  of   learned  counsel  for  the  respondent is that prima facie the  prosecution has failed to produce  any  material  to  implicate  the  respondent  in  the  crime  of   conspiracy.  In  this  regard  he  submitted  that  most  of  the  

11

Page 12

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

witnesses  have  already  turned  hostile.  The only  other  evidence  available  to  the  prosecution  to   connect the respondent with the  crime is an alleged confession of   the  co-accused  which  according  to  the  learned  counsel  was  inadmissible  in  evidence.  Therefore,  he  contends  that  the  High  Court  was  justified  in  granting  bail  since  the  prosecution  has  failed  to  establish even a prima facie case  against the respondent. From the  High Court order we do not find  this as a ground for granting bail.   Be that as it may, we think that   this  argument  is  too  premature  for us to accept. The admissibility   or  otherwise  of  the  confessional   statement  and  the  effect  of  the   evidence already adduced by the  prosecution and the merit of the  evidence  that  may  be  adduced  hereinafter  including  that  of  the  witnesses  sought  to  be  recalled   are all  matters to be considered  at the stage of the trial.”

15. In Raneef (supra), it was observed :

“15. In  deciding  bail  applications  an  important factor which should certainly be  taken into consideration by the court is the  delay  in  concluding  the  trial.  Often  this   takes several  years,  and if  the accused is   denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who  will restore so many years of his life spent   in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution,   which  is  the  most  basic  of  all  the  fundamental rights in our Constitution, not   violated in such a case? Of course this is not   the only factor, but it is certainly one of the  important  factors  in  deciding  whether  to   grant  bail.  In  the  present  case  the  respondent  has  already  spent  66  days  in   custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter- affidavit),  and  we  see  no  reason  why  he   should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated  

1

Page 13

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

for  a  long  period  may  end  up  like  Dr.   Manette in Charles Dicken’s novel A Tale of  Two  Cities,  who  forgot  his  profession  and  even his name in the Bastille.”

16. In Sanjay Chandra (supra), it was observed :

“21. In  bail  applications,  generally,  it  has  been laid down from the earliest times that   the  object  of  bail  is  to  secure  the  appearance  of  the  accused  person  at  his   trial  by  reasonable  amount  of  bail.  The  object  of  bail  is  neither  punitive  nor  preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be   considered  a  punishment,  unless  it  is   required to ensure that an accused person  will  stand  his  trial  when  called  upon.  The  courts owe more than verbal respect to the   principle  that  punishment  begins  after   conviction, and that every man is deemed  to  be  innocent  until  duly  tried  and  duly   found guilty.

24. In  the  instant  case,  we  have  already  noticed  that  the  “pointing  finger  of   accusation”  against  the  appellants  is  “the  seriousness  of  the  charge”.  The  offences   alleged are economic offences which have  resulted  in  loss  to  the  State  exchequer.   Though,  they  contend  that  there  is  a  possibility of the appellants tampering with   the  witnesses,  they  have  not  placed  any  material in support of the allegation. In our   view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt,   one  of  the  relevant  considerations  while   considering bail applications but that is not   

1

Page 14

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

the only test or the factor: the other factor   that also requires to be taken note of is the   punishment  that  could  be  imposed  after   trial  and conviction,  both  under  the  Penal   Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.   Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we  would  not  be  balancing  the  constitutional   rights but rather “recalibrating the scales of   justice”.

17. In the light of above settled principles of  law dealing with the  

prayer for bail pending trial, we proceed to consider the present case.  

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  

1

Page 15

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

jeopardising  the  interest  of  justice,  we  do  not  find  any  ground  to  

interfere with the view taken by the trial Court and the High Court in  

declining bail.

18. 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.  We are  

thus,  of  the  opinion  that  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.  We have also  

been informed that a special prosecutor has been appointed and the  

matter  is  being  tried  before  a  Special  Court.   The  High  Court  is  

monitoring the matter.   We expect that in these circumstances, the  

trial will proceed day to day and its progress will be duly monitored.  

Material  witnesses  may be  identified  and  examined  at  the  earliest.  

Having regard to special  features of this case, we request the High  

Court to take up the matter once in three months to take stock of the  

progress of trial and to issue such directions as may be necessary.  We  

also direct that if the trial is not completed within one year from today  

for  reasons  not  attributable  to  the  appellant,  the  appellant  will  be  

1

Page 16

Criminal Appeal No…. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014

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.

19. The  appeal  is  accordingly  disposed  of  with  the  above  

observations.   We  make  it  clear  that  observations  in  our  above  

judgment will not be treated as expression of any opinion on merits of  

the  case  and  the  trial  Court  may  decide  the  matter  without  being  

influenced by any such observation.  

……………………………………………J.       (T.S. THAKUR)

……………………………………………J.                     (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 4,  2015

1