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.    

1

Page 2

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 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  

2

Page 3

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 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  

3

Page 4

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  

4

Page 5

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.  

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  

5

Page 6

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 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  

6

Page 7

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  

7

Page 8

years experience 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.   

8

Page 9

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 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  

9

Page 10

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.   

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

following factors have to be considered:

1

Page 11

(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  

1

Page 12

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:-

(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.  

1

Page 13

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

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

NEW DELHI; MARCH 30, 2012.

1