SHOBHAN SINGH KHANKA Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 7644 of 2011
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