Vyapam Scam: Accused Gets Interim Protection From Arrest

The Supreme Court has recently granted interim protection from arrest to a man accused in the multi-crore Vyapam scam case while directing him to cooperate in the investigation.

The division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Aravind Kumar issued notice to the Madhya Pradesh government and sought its reply to the plea.

The bench stated that “Counsel for the petitioner submits by reference to the report of the Special Task Force that insofar as the role of the petitioner is concerned, other than the memorandum by an accused, nothing has been found and the investigation is concluded and final report filed. Issue notice. In the meantime, the petitioner be not arrested but shall cooperate with the investigation, if any.”
The top court heard a plea filed by Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava challenging an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which dismissed his plea for anticipatory bail.

Therefore, Shrivastava made accused by the Special Task Force (STF), Bhopal probing the case after a complaint at the police station. STF Bhopal regarding the irregularities committed in the admission process of competition examinations by the Professional Examination Board Vyapam.

Advocate Namit Saxena, appearing for the accused, argued that the status report filed by the STF reflects that the investigation is complete but the high court while dismissing the plea for anticipatory bail directed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

The plea said that “The high court, without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner. That petitioner’s name appears only in the memorandum of the accused and absolutely nothing relevant or concrete has been produced/found against him. Even the SHO STF Police Station in its final report has clearly stated that the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offense has not been found and recommended that the case against the petitioner should be closed.”