Shanti Devi vs The State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar, J.—Anticipatory bail application filed by Petitioner Shanti Devi in connection with Vigilance 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. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate and opposed by Sri. T.N. Verma appearing for the Vigilance Department.

It is alleged in the FIR that the Chairman and various members of Jharkhand Public Service Commission in connivance with different candidates had committed large scale bungling, manipulation, irregularities and had tempered the marks obtained by the candidates and thereby recommended names of their own relatives and other candidates for appointment in Government service. It is also alleged that the present Petitioner, who is a member of Jharkhand Public Service Commission, took part in the selection process knowing that her own brother and niece were appearing in the examination. It is also alleged that the Petitioner being Chairman of one of the Interview Board raised marks of different candidates by making interpolation in evaluation sheet. It is alleged that she hatched criminal conspiracy with the Chairman, other members of Jharkhand Public Service Commission and also various beneficiaries for her personal gain.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the Petitioner declared that her brother and niece were appearing in the examination and requested the Chairman for not allotting her any work , job or function in relation to examination. It is submitted that aforesaid declaration goes to show bonafide intention of Petitioner. It is further submitted that Petitioner did not perform function of evaluator of answer book nor she was member of Interview Board in which her relatives appeared. Thus the allegation of bungling, manipulation or corrupt practice against the Petitioner is baseless.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that there are sufficient materials in the case diary to show that the Petitioner has committed bungling in the 2nd Civil Service Examination conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had not declared that her own brother and niece were appearing in the aforesaid examination. Thus the submission of Petitioner that she has brought the aforesaid fact in the knowledge of Chairman and requested him to keep her away from the examination process is false and has been made with a view to mislead this Court. It is further submitted that the records show that the Petitioner raised number of various candidates by making interpolation in the evaluation sheet. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed.

Having heard the submission, I have gone through the records of the case and other documents produced by Vigilance Department. From perusal of same, it appears that the Petitioner was Chairman of one of the Interview Board. From perusal of Evaluation Sheet dated 28.1.2008, it appears that the Petitioner has made interpolation in the marks obtained by candidates, namely, Prahalad Kumar Das, Prakash Kumar Das, Prashant Kumar Liak. It appears that if the marks of these candidates had not been raised by the Petitioner then they would not have been selected. It further appears that own brother of Petitioner, namely, Vinod Ram and niece, namely, Kumari Geetanjali appeared in the examination but this fact has not been brought to the notice of Public Service Commission. It further appears that the Petitioner has also made interpolation in the evaluation sheets of other candidates, namely, Ibrar Ahmad Khan, Jaibardhan Kumar, Indrajeet Singh, Jai Kumar Ram, Md. Aslam, Pravin Ujjawal Tirkey Rajesh Hemant Kujur and Sushila Samad.

Considering the aforesaid materials on record, I find that this is not a fit case of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the Petitioner, above named, is rejected.