Page 1

       REPORTABLE         

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.      592       OF     2012   (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7644 of 2011)

Shobhan Singh Khanka              .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Jharkhand              .... Respondent(s)

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  

21.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in A.B.A.  

No. 3230 of 2011 whereby the High Court rejected the application for  

anticipatory bail filed by the appellant herein.    

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant herein, who acted as one of the Expert in the  

Interview Board to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short  

“the JPSC”), filed a petition before the Special Judge (Vigilance),  

for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) in connection with Special  

Case No. 23 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance PS No. 23 of 2010 under  

1

Page 2

Sections 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 120-B, 109 and 201  

of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (in short “the IPC”) and Section  

13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of  

Corruption Act, 1988.  

(b) According to the appellant, he was intimated that he had been  

nominated as Expert No1 in the Interview Board for holding interview  

from 28.01.2008 to 01.02.2008.  He was selected by the Members of  

the Expert Committee including the Chairman of the JPSC.

(c) The allegations against the appellant, Chairman and other  

Members of the JPSC are that they provided highest marks to the  

candidates whom they desire to be selected or appointed by giving  

undue favour.  The appellant is also responsible for conspiracy with  

the Chairman, Members of the JPSC and the candidates who were given  

highest marks by the Interview Board.  It is also alleged that the  

appellant is responsible for cutting, manipulation, interpolation in  

the marks sheet of the Interview Board in order to provide benefit  

to the candidates for selection and appointment.  

(d) The prosecution case in a nutshell is that an enquiry was  

conducted by the vigilance department regarding the irregularity  

committed by the Chairman, Members and officers of the JPSC in  

conducting Second JPSC Civil Services Examination pursuant to  

advertisement No. 7 of 2005 dated 12.11.2005.  It is alleged by the  

prosecution that the examination was not held in accordance with the  

guidelines.  The Members either have not given declaration regarding  

their relation appearing in the examination and those who have given  

2

Page 3

declaration have not provided the required details.  The further  

allegation of the prosecution is that there has been manipulation in  

the numbers awarded to the students.  The prosecution examined 22  

copies and it has been alleged that they have found manipulation in  

the answer sheets.  It is the further case of the prosecution that  

there has been large-scale bungling, manipulation, tampering of  

marks, irregularity in the appointment of Examiners and Members of  

the Interview Board and the Chairman in connivance with the Members  

and also in conspiracy with the successful candidates for securing  

monetary gains to the officials of JPSC in utter disregard to the  

rules and by practicing corrupt method recommendations for  

appointment of various persons were made to the Government.  

Accordingly, a First Information Report (in short “FIR”) was lodged  

against several persons including the appellant.   

(e) By order dated 01.08.2011, the Special Judge (Vigilance)  

Ranchi, on consideration of the materials refused to enlarge the  

appellant on anticipatory bail and rejected his petition.  Against  

the order of the Special Judge, the appellant preferred A.B.A. No.  

3230 of 2001 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.  By  

impugned order dated 21.09.2011, the High Court confirmed the order  

of the Special Judge and dismissed his petition for anticipatory  

bail.  

4) Heard Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the  

appellant and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the  

respondent-State of Jharkhand.  

3

Page 4

5) After taking us through all the materials including the FIR  

and the allegations pertaining to the present appellant, Mr. Lalit,  

learned senior counsel submitted that in the FIR except for stating  

that the appellant was one of the Expert, there is nothing which can  

even remotely connect the appellant with any offence much less the  

offences alleged therein.  He also submitted that the appellant who  

hails from District Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand, presently posted at  

Faridabad, Haryana has no relatives, friends or kinsmen in the State  

of Jharkhand and, therefore, had no reason or motive to favour  

anybody and in that event be a part of any conspiracy to commit the  

alleged crime.  He further pointed out the role of the appellant as  

Expert Member was only to award marks to each candidate on a  

separate sheet and had nothing to do beyond it.  He also pointed out  

that the observation of the High Court in the impugned order  

rejecting his anticipatory bail application on the ground that the  

appellant stands on a similar footing as that of other accused is  

factually incorrect inasmuch as the appellant cannot be equated with  

the case of other Experts who belong to the State of Jharkhand and  

are alleged to be related or known to candidates and, therefore, had  

no reason or motive to commit the alleged crime.  On the other hand,  

learned counsel for the State submitted that considering the serious  

nature of the crime and of the fact that the appellant’s initial  

selection as expert is itself contrary to the rules and several  

manipulations have been done by all the persons concerned in the  

4

Page 5

selection panel, it is not a fit case in which the anticipatory bail  

is to be granted.   

6) We have carefully perused the relevant materials and  

considered the rival contentions.   

7) Inasmuch as we are concerned about the eligibility or  

otherwise relating to grant of anticipatory bail, there is no need  

to go into all the factual details and arrive a finding one way or  

the other which will affect the ultimate trial of the case.  We have  

already referred to the offences alleged in the FIR.  It is settled  

law that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right.  With  

this background, we have to see that whether a case has been made  

out for grant of anticipatory bail.   

8) It is not in dispute that he is not a regular Member of the  

JPSC.  Admittedly, he is in Central Government service and he was  

nominated as Expert No.1 by the Board.  Thought it is pointed out  

that his nomination itself is bad, that is not a relevant issue at  

this moment.  Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant  

pointed out his higher academic qualifications.  All those details  

are available in Annexure-P1 which shows that the appellant  

possesses qualifications of M.Com., (Gold Medallist) and holder of 5  

Ph.Ds.  He is a Professor and Coordinator in Fellow Programme and  

Management in National Institute of Financial Management of the  

Central Government and he has an experience of 16 years as Professor  

since 21.10.1994.  He has 13 years administrative experience as Head  

of the Department of Business Administration and 13 years experience  

5

Page 6

as Dean in the School of Management Studies.  The appellant has  

specialization in Human Resources Management, Organisational  

behaviour and Entrepreneurship Development and besides that, he has  

experience on International Exposure of visiting Professor in other  

foreign countries.  It is also pointed out that the appellant has  

been a regular expert in the Selection Committees of UGC, AICTE,  

ICSSR and other Universities.  He has to his credit the authorship  

of numerous Research/Reference Books and Textbooks.  Recently on  

26.05.2011, the appellant was awarded “Shiksha Rattan Puraskar”  by  

H.E. the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh.  It is also brought to our  

notice that in July, 2011, Hon’ble the President of India based on  

the academic qualification of the appellant nominated him as her  

nominee for recruitment of Assistant/Associate Professors in the  

Faculty of Commerce and Management in the Indira Gandhi National  

Tribal University, Amar Kantak, Madhya Pradesh.  The above details  

show that the appellant has excellent academic career.   

9) In the FIR, the appellant has been named as accused No.7.  

Though it is pointed out that the appellant has given highest marks  

to the candidates who were given only 10 marks by the Chairman of  

the Interview Board, it is not in dispute that he is not a Member of  

the JPSC Board nor belongs to Jharkhand State.  As stated earlier,  

he was selected as specialized member for a short period only.  Mr.  

Lalit has also taken us through the chart showing marks given by  

experts including the present appellant - Expert No.1, Expert No.2  

and the Chairman Shanti Devi.  Interestingly, the Chairman has  

6

Page 7

allotted 10 marks to each of the candidate irrespective of his/her  

performance.  We are not here to assess and give a finding whether  

the marks awarded by the appellant (Expert No.1) is excessive or  

unreasonable.  All those things have to be analyzed only at the time  

of trial by way of evidence.   

10) Though the High Court has concluded that on the ground of  

parity and on the similar footing that the other co-accused declined  

to grant anticipatory bail, we are of the view that inasmuch as all  

other Members of the Board including the Chairman belong to  

Jharkhand and some of their relatives participated in the selection  

and considering the fact that the present appellant has no  

connection with the JPSC and hails from a different State, namely,  

Uttarakhand, the said observation/conclusion is not acceptable.  

11) The perusal of the FIR also shows that the appellant was not  

acquainted with or related to any of the candidates interviewed by  

the panel of which he was a Member.  In view of the assertion that  

the appellant does not belong to the State of Jharkhand and has no  

relatives, friends or kinsmen in the State of Jharkhand, there is no  

prima facie case to include him in the alleged conspiracy.  

Considering his academic qualifications and experience and taking  

note of his claim that of an impeccable career as academician and of  

the fact that he has no interest in the State of Jharkhand, we hold  

that the appellant has made out a case for anticipatory bail under  

Section 438 of the Code.   

7

Page 8

12) While considering the claim of pre-arrest bail, the following  

factors have to be considered:

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to  

whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction  

by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and  

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring  

or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested.

Considering the limited allegation in the FIR and other details, his  

academic qualifications including the fact that he does not belong  

to the State of Jharkhand and has no relatives and is not a Member  

of the JPSC, acted as Expert No.1 only for a short period, the  

appellant has made out a case for anticipatory bail.  Even if the  

prosecution has any apprehension, sub-section (2) of Section 438  

enables the court concerned to impose such conditions/directions as  

it may thinks fit.  

13) Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Special  

Judge as well as the High Court dismissing his petition for  

anticipatory bail are set aside.  Accordingly, we direct that in the  

event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail in  

connection with PS case No. 23 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case  

No. 23 of 2010, Vigilance PS, Ranchi, Jharkhand subject to the  

following conditions:-

8

Page 9

(i) the appellant shall make himself available for  

interrogation as and when required;

(ii) the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any  

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted  

with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from  

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police  

officer;

(iii) the appellant shall not leave India without the  

previous permission of the special court.  

14) It is made clear that the conclusion reached by us is limited  

to the disposal of the application for anticipatory bail and  the  

Special Judge is free to decide the charges in the ultimate trial in  

accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the  

observation/conclusion made herein.  

15) The appeal is allowed on the above terms.               

………….…………………………J.                  (P. SATHASIVAM)  

       ………….…………………………J.                 (J. CHELAMESWAR)  

NEW DELHI; MARCH 30, 2012.

9