SOHAN RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the anticipatory bail applications are heard together as both applications arose from same FIR and the allegation against the Petitioners are similar as they are expert member of the Interview Board. Both anticipatory bail applications are in connection with Ranchi Special Case No. 23 of 2010 ( Vigilance P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010) pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi.

(2.) HEARD Sri Nitya Nand Sinha and Sri K.P. Deo learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri T.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that Petitioners were invited by Jharkhand Public Service Commission to act as an Expert in the Interview. It is further submitted that according to the Rules of Jharkhand Public Service Commission experts are required to give marks on the separate sheet and after signing the same they sealed it and deposit in the office, thereafter, they have no concern with the said marks sheet. It is submitted that if any interpolation made in the aforesaid marks sheet, the same ought to have been done in the office and Petitioners can not be blamed for the same. It is further submitted that nothing has been brought on record by the Vigilance Department to show that the said interpolation were made by these Petitioners. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Petitioners, who were retired government servant having clean past record, may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that there are sufficient materials to show that Petitioners interpolated the marks sheet and thereby raised the marks of different candidates. Learned Counsel of Vigilance Department produced various evaluation sheets of Interview Board relating to these Petitioners and submits that the Petitioners not only made interpolation in the said evaluation sheet rather they put their initials on it, which prima facie goes to show that the Petitioners had made such interpolation and raised marks of different candidates. Accordingly, it is submitted that Petitioners did not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.