Ganesh Kumar Ram vs Union Of India

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection R.C. 4(A)/2013-R arising out of

Vigilance Case No. P.E. No. 04 (A)/2012-R registered under sections 120B read with section 201/ 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with

section 13 (2) read with 13 1 (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons entered

into criminal conspiracy and under the said criminal conspiracy the co-accused persons using their official position dishonestly and fraudulently

manipulated the merit list, assessment charts to extend undue benefit to their preferred candidates including the petitioner and under the guidance and

influence of Jharkhand Public Service Commission officials, the petitioner was dishonestly and fraudulently declared qualified even though he secured

less marks then the candidates who even after securing more marks could not qualify for the post of lecturers and the recruitment test was conducted

in complete violation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2002. It is next submitted that the petitioner consequent upon

being declared successful in the Jharkhand Eligibility Test was appointed as a Lecturer of Economics at Godda College, Godda in the year 2008. It is

then submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and comes from a poor and destitute family and the only allegation against

the petitioner is that he has received only 107 marks in the 3rd paper of the Jharkhand Eligibility Test Examination whereas the minimum marks

required was 113. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material in the record to suggest that 113 marks was the

minimum marks required in the 3rd paper of the said Jharkhand Eligibility Test Examination as the advertisement is silent about any minimum marks to

be scored in the paper â€"III of the said examination. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has not committed any overt criminal act. Hence, it is

submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 9441 of 2019 vide Judgment dated 18.12.2019, in the case of Jharkhand Public Service Commission Vs.

Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anr. has held that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has rightly fixed the minimum marks for Paper â€"III and this

being a case of criminal conspiracy, direct evidence of involvement of the petitioner in any overt criminal act is not a sine qua none and the fact that

even though the petitioner did not score the minimum marks, still he has been selected as a Lecturer of Economics speaks volumes about his

complicity in the criminal conspiracy. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation

against the petitioner of being involved in a fraudulent process of recruitment conducted by the co-accused members of the Jharkhand Public Service

Commission and keeping in view that he is an influential person which is evident from the fact that he succeeded in his fraudulent selection after

entering into criminal conspiracy with no less than the high ranking persons like members of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission; there is every

chance of his tampering with the evidence if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege 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 if released on

bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.