AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
Heard the parties.
Apprehending her arrest in connection with RC Case No. 04 (A)/2013-R registered under Sections 120B read with Section 201, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and the co-accused persons using their official position dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated the merit list and assessment charts etc. to extend undue benefit to their preferred candidates and under the guidance and influence of J.P.S.C. Officers, the petitioner was dishonestly and fraudulently declared qualified even though she secured less marks than the minimum marks required and there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory deciphered that the petitioner has been given 20 marks by one expert which was manipulated to 28 in the Assessment Chart and merit list has fraudulently mentioned it as 38 and the Chairman of the Interview Board has awarded her 28 marks in the Assessment Chart which has fraudulently been mentioned as 38 in the Merit List and she deserves only 71 marks whereas the minimum marks required was 77.75 and she was fraudulently declared selected on the basis of 49 marks for her career and 29 marks for interview i.e. total 78 marks and she was appointed as Lecturer in History in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has completed her graduation (B.A. History Honors) in the year 1983 and passed her post-graduation in History in the year 1986 as well as obtained Ph.D. Degree in the subject of History in the year 2000 and the she has worked in the said college for more than 11 years. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being involved in fraudulent process of recruitment conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and keeping in view the fact that she is an influential person which is evident from the fact that she has managed her fraudulent selection after entering into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons with no less than the high ranking members of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence if admitted to bail. It is next submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused persons has already been rejected vide order dated 16.01.2020 and 04.12.2019 in A.B.A. Nos.9436 and 8484 of 2019 respectively and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (Crl.) No(s). 863 of 2020 has declined to interfere with the rejection order of the anticipatory bail application and dismissed the special leave petition vide order dated 11.02.2020. It is then submitted that in S.L.P. (Crl.) No(s). 3061 of 2020 which was filed by the similarly placed co-accused of the petitioner namely Mamta Kerketta whose prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by this court by order dated 11.02.2020 in A.B.A. No. 8905 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed the petitioner to appear in the trial court. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of having got selected as a Lecturer in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons including the members of Jharkhand Public Service Commission and keeping in view the chances of tampering with evidence by her if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.