LexDR. VINOD BHANDARI versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 354 A DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P. ' B (Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2015) FEBRUARY 04, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Bail - C Rejection of - Appellant, Managing Director of Medical Institute involved in the offence of illegal admission of large number of undeserving candidates to the medical courses by corrupt means - Rejection of prayer for bail D by courts below - On appeal, held: 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 - Seriousness of the a/legation or the material in support thereof are not the only E considerations for declining bail - However, on account of delay in trial, accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period - On facts, the offence is of high magnitude and has the potential of undermining the trust of the people in the integrity of medical profession itself, F there is depravity of character and generation of black money - Thus, in view of the material on record and there being a potential of trial being adversely influenced by grant of bail, the order passed by the courts below G H declining bail upheld. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The offence alleged against the appellant has serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society. 354 DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P. 355 The offence is of high magnitude indicating illegal A 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 B 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 C 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 D adversely influenced by grant of bail, seriously jeopardising the interest of justice, there is no ground to interfere with the view taken by the trial court and the High Court in declining bail. (Para 17] [369-H;370-A-D]. E 1.2 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 F 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. If the G trial is not completed within one year from today for reasons not attributable to the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to apply for bail afresh to the High Court [Para 18] (370-E-G; 370-8-C] H 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42; State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454: (2005) 8 SCC 21; State of Kera/a vs. Raneef 2011 (1) SCR 590: (2011) 1 SCC 784; Sanjay Chandra vs. CB/ 2011 (13) SCR 309: (2012) 1 SCC 40 B - referred to. Case Law Reference (2005) 2 sec 42 Referred to. Para12 c 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 Referred to. Para 12 2011 (1) SCR 590 Referred to. Para 12 2011 (13) SCR 309 Referred to. Para 12 D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2014 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M. Cr. E C. No. 10371 of 2014. F Siddharth Luthra, H. P. Raval, Kunal Verma, Keki Vajpei, Prasanna Mohan, Anando Mukherjee for the Appellant. Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla, Ankit Kr. Lal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G 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 H Case No.10371 of 2014 whereby a Division Bench of the DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P. 357 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] High Court dismissed the bail application filed by A the appellan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.