Santosh Kumar Choudhary vs The State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar, J.—Anticipatory bail application filed by Petitioner Santosh Kumar Choudhary in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010 ( Special Case No. 23 of 2010) pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi is moved by Sri. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate and opposed by Sri. T.N. Verma learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department.

It is alleged in the FIR that the Chairman and members of Jharkhand Public Service Commission in connivance with expert of Interview Board and other candidates committed large scale bungling, manipulation, irregularities in the 2nd Civil Service Examination conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission and thereby recommended the name of Petitioner and other candidates for appointment in government service.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a candidate and he has no access in the office of Jharkhand Public Service Commission, therefore, it is absurd to allege that the Petitioner has made interpolation in the answer sheet. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has no knowledge that any interpolation and/or manipulation made in the answer sheet. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a deserving candidate and he has been rightly selected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, therefore, he is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that during the investigation interpolation was found on various pages of the answer sheet of Petitioner relating to subjects General Studies 1st and 2nd parts, History 1st part, Labour and Social Welfare 2nd part. The said answer sheets were sent to Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat for examination. It is submitted that the report of Director of Forensic Science Laboratory reveals that 91 marks raised by aforesaid interpolation. It is submitted that the Petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of the criminal conspiracy.

Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case and the various documents produced by the learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department. From perusal of the papers produced by the Vigilance Department, I find that there is interpolation in the answer book of Petitioner relating to the subject General Studies 1st and 2nd part, History 1st part and Labour and Social Welfare 2nd part. Para 615 of the diary No. 72 reveals that the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat confirms that there was interpolation in the aforesaid answer book.

Considering the same, I am not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the Petitioner, above named, is rejected.