Mr. Anant Bijay Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C. 06(A)/2013AHDR, for the offence registered under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) P. C. Act.
3. The prosecution case of prosecution as unfolded in the written report dated 09.08.2013 of Rajiv Ranjan, Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging inter alia that the Hon''ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi vide its order dated 14.06.2012 arising out of W.P. (PIL) No. 3594 of 2011 with analogous cases directed the C.B.I to take up the enquiry of Vigilance P.S. Case No. PE36/ 2010 dated 24.09.2010, hence the Vigilance P.S. Case PE.36/2010 was registered as PE 1(A) 2012AHDR.
4. It has been alleged that the appointment were made by Chairman and Members of Jharkhand Public Service Commission of their near and dear one and relatives on the post of Primary Trained Teachers, Residential School Teachers and other posts by abusing their official position and thereby causing damage to other bright candidates. It is further alleged that on the requisition of the then Secretary, Welfare Deptt. Govt. of Jharkhand, JPSC advertised 235 posts of Residential School Teacher vide advertisement/notification No. 14/2006 dated 04.12.2006. Examination for Residential School Teachers was objective type consisting of General Hindi and General Studies of 100 marks each. Merit list was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in both subjects. After completion of the examination on 15.04.2007, merit list of 235 candidates were prepared and recommended for appointment. JPSC could make available only 301 OMR answer sheets of successful candidates. Scrutiny of merit list prepared by JPSC reveals the cut off marks for General , OBC, ST, SC categories were 162, 161, 144 and 149 respectively. Answer keys of objective type questions could not be made available by the JPSC. Scrutiny of 301 OMR sheets reveals that 13 candidates had attempted less number of questions, but were awarded more marks in the merit list. The merit list chart reveals that all the 13 candidates were not qualifying in any way on the basis of their respective answer sheets OMR sheets. They have only been selected on the basis of inflated marks allotted to them, in the merit list without any valid reason. These shows criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct on the part of J.P.S.C officials, Sri Dhiraj Kumar (petitioner) of M/s NCCF, Ranchi and successful candidates.
5. It is further alleged that Dr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, the then Chairman, JPSC, Dr. Gopal Prasad Singh, Senior Member, JPSC, Dr. Shanti Devi, Dr. Radha Govind Singh ''Nagesh'' the then members JPSC have approved the result of above examination on 01.11.2007. Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh, the then Secretarycum Examination Controller, JPSC has processed and put up the above result for approval of board. Sri Dhiraj Kumar of NCCF, Ranchi was responsible for scanning of OMR answer sheets and preparation of merit list related to this selection of Residential School Teachers. The act and omission prima facie discloses a cognisable offence on the part of responsible JPSC officers, private out sourcing company who processed and prepared the above result and all the above 13 successful candidates who were ultimate beneficiaries in the Residential School Teacher Exam, 200708. On the basis of those allegations the instant cases has been instituted.
6. It appears that after completion of investigation, C.B.I has submitted final form no. 14/14 dated 24.11.2014. Close scrutiny of the final form reveals that J.P.S.C as approved by the Chairman, Shri Dilip Kumar Prasad over the Pre-Examination processing work and Post Examination processing work to M/s NCCF, Ranchi without taking approval from the Commission. M/s NCCF further sublet the work to one Shri Dheeraj Kumar (petitioner) of M/s Global Informatics, Ranchi. As per the J.P.S.C Commission Rules of Procedure, 2002, the work relating to preexamination processing and post examination processing was to be carried out by the JPSC officers not below the rank of Dy. Secretary but the same was out sources by the then Chairman, Shri Dilip Kumar Prasad to M/s NCCF. Accordingly, Shri Dheeraj Kumar, M/s NCCF''s (petitioner) representative started the processing work of this examination at the premises of JPSC in the allotted room called Computer section in the premises of JPSC, Ranchi.
7. Investigation further reveals that the evaluation/scanning of the OMR answer booklets were done by Shri Dheeraj Kumar in the presence of Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh, the then Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, JPSC, Ranchi on scanner machine provided by JPSC. The marks list/tabulation/merit list etc was prepared by Shri Dheeraj Kumar, (petitioner) representative of M/s NCCF, Ranchi under the overall control of Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh, Examination Controller. The cut off marks for the selection of the candidates of unreserved, OBC, SC and ST categories was fixed at 162, 149 and 144 marks respectively by the JPSC. Mark lists and Merit lists in vacancy and roaster wise prepared and submitted by Shri Dheeraj Kuamr (petitioner) were put up in the file on 06.10.2007 by Shri Sanjit Samrendra Lakra, Section Officer to Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh, Mark List of 6495 candidates consisting in 123 pages was signed on each page by Shri Dheeraj Kumar (petitioner) were photo copies and the merit list in original has the signature of Smt Alice Usha Rani Singh. She marked the file to Shri Dilip Kumar Prasad, Chairman on 06.10.2007, who marked the file to the Senior Member, Shri Gopal Prasad Singh and Smt. Shanti Devi, Member on 06.10.2007.
8. It further reveals that on 06.10.2007, Shri Gopal Prasad Singh, member instead of scrutinizing the merit list as per the provisions of JPSC Rules, 2002 asked for trivial clarifications from Examination Controller Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh. The result of the examination was issued vide letter bearing no. 1179 dated 01.11.2007 by Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh, Secretary-cum-Examination Controller addressed to Secretary, Department of Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand recommending for the appointment of 235 candidates for Residential School teacher.
9. The scrutiny of the furnished OMR Answer Booklets, a total of following 15 candidates have been found to have attempted far less number of questions than the marks awarded to them in respective papers. Each question was for one mark only. Even if all the marked/attempted questions are taken to be correct, these candidates are awarded for excess numbers and had not even marked them, although there were no negative marks in the examination. These fifteen candidates had been selected by inflating their marks in the marks sheet.
10-11. Shree Dheeraj Kumar, representative of M/s NCCF (petitioner) was responsible for evaluation/scanning of these OMR Answer booklets for post examination processing and for preparation of the merit list under immediate and overall supervision of Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh, the Examination Controller. The Members and Chairman are also responsible for intentionally not conducting proper scrutiny of such OMR Answer booklets, although these ineligible candidates figures in the list of successful candidates. Hence, the responsible for selecting these undeserving candidates lies with all these JPSC officials and Shri Dheeraj Kumar. It is further submitted that the allegation with regard to not producing entire OMR sheets of the successful candidates to the investigating office is not the duty of the petitioner rather it was the duty of the commission and its staff because after preparation of final merit list and the entire raw data and OMR sheets has been handed over to the commission as per service agreement entered between the petitioner and M/s NCCF and JPSC with M/s NCCF.
12. Investigation further reveals that Shree Dheeraj Kumar (petitioner) had done pre and post processing examination work of this examination on behalf of M/s NCCF, Ranchi. That he had scanned all the OMR answer booklets and prerpared the merit list in ascending order of Roll No, which is consisting of the inflated marks of 15 candidates, who were declared successful. That he intentionally assisted examination controller in preparation of the wrong merit list and selection of undeserving candidates.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that work for preexamination and post examination process was allotted to M/s NCCF by the JPSC through an agreement dated 22.12.2004, but surprisingly neither NCCF nor its authorities who signed the agreement was made an accused in this case nor their complicities creptup during course of investigation. It is further submitted that being owner of Global Informatics, Piska More, Ratu Road, Ranchi being date operator entered into an agreement with M/sf NCCF for doing the work of pre and post examination processing. The petitioner did not enter into any contract or agreement with J.P.S.C of whose credibility is under cloud by way of the present prosecution. As per the F.I.R and Charge sheet, the petitioner was involved in scanning of OMR answer booklets. The same has been done by him in presence of the Examination Controller and no ill motive has been alleged against him. The work of evaluation was not assigned to M/s NCCF because the work of evaluation is done by the JPSC because as per the rules of JPSC 2002 a moderation board has to be constituted to evaluate the OMR answer sheet. The job of the petitioner was only to the extent that he will enter the date entry of marks given by the evaluator to the candidates. Even in the agreement entered by the JPSC and NCCF evaluation work was not allotted to M/s NCCF and in this regard the agreement dated 22.12.2004 has been annexed as annexure 3 to this application. Further it has been submitted that as per allegation levelled in the F.I.R. The petitioner has prepared the marks list, tabulation and merit list. During investigation it transpire that the merit list was handed over to the Examination Controller along with raw data who intern sent it before the Chairman and other members of the commission where after making microscopic scrutiny the merit list was returned for its publication finally. At the time of scrutiny the petitioner was not present nor he was responsible in manner in decision making process of JPSC. It is further submitted that as per allegation in the investigation report, it has been alleged that 15 candidates have been appointed as residential school teachers on the basis of inflated marks, the allotment of marks was not the duty of the petitioner rather it was incumbent upon the evaluator of the OMR sheets to put marks on their answers. The petitioner has entered only those marks on the raw data which has been given to him by the commission. It is further submitted that the allegation with regard to not producing entire OMR sheets of the successful candidates to the investigating officer is not the duty of the petitioner rather it was the duty of the commission and its staff because after preparation of final merit list the entire raw date and OMR sheets has been handed over to the commission as per service agreement entered between the petitioner and M/s NCCF and JPSC with M/s NCCF. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, C.B.I has failed to collect evidence against these petitioners that who impersonated the petitioners. It is further submitted that during investigation the petitioner cooperated in the investigation and whenever the Investigating Officer asked to appear the petitioner, he appeared before the I.O and he was never arrested by the Investigating Officer and his statement has been recorded. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final form has been submitted and cognizance has been taken 24.11.2014 against the accused persons including this petitioner and summons were issued to them and Trial will take some time. Considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
14. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counter affidavit. Referring to various paras of the counter affidavit learned counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that JP.SC vide its advertisement No. 14/06 dated 02.12.2006 requisitioned application for recruitment of 235 Matric Scale Teachers for the Residential Schools in Jharkhand State. The examination took place on 15.04.2007. The J.PS.C handed over the pre examination and post examination processing work to M/s NCCF, Ranchi on approval by the Chairman, Shri Dilip Kumar Prasad without taking approval from the Commission although the same was required as per JPSC Rules, 2002. M/s NCCF further sublet the work to one Shri Dheeraj Kumar (petitioner) of M/s Global Informatics, Rancii. Shri Dilip Kumar Prasad Chairman had arbitrarily and dishonestly appointed Shri Dheeraj Kumar, representative of M/s NCCF for pre and Post Examination Processing work without assigning any reason and without consulting the Commission. Accordingly, the petitioner started the processing work of this examination in the premises of JPSC, Ranchi. The evaluation/scanning of the OMR answer booklets were done by Sri Dheeraj Kumar in the presence of Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh, the then Secretary-cum-examination Controlloer, JPSC Ranchi on a scanner machine provided by JPSC. The marks list/tabulatin/merit list etc. The mark list and merit lists in vacancy was roster wise prepared and submitted by the petitioner. The list was consisting of the names of 6495 candidates in 123 pages, each page have been signed by the petitioner. The list was put up by the Examination Controller to the Chairman, who further marked it to Sri Gopal Prasad Singh and Smt Shanti Devi , who did not conduct the scrutiny work as per the provisions of JPSC Rules, 2002, a proceeding dated 01.11.2007 was issued by the commission approving the result prepared by Secretary-cum-examination Controller on the basis of the marks sheet prepared by Sri Dheeraj Kumar (petitioner. The scrutiny of the furnished OMR Answre Booklets revealed that a total of 15 candidates viz, Shri Jitendra Kumar Singhdeo, Shri Sikander Manjhi, Shri Santoshji, Ms. Durgawati Kumar, Shri Sajad Ansari, Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Ms. Promila Dadel, Ms. Jiswanti Demta, Ms. Poonam Tigga, Ms. Shushma Paul Purty, Ms. Nelan Horo Barla, Ms. Pratima Ekka, Ms. Surlen Kachaap, Shri Jamil Akhtar Ansari and smt. Elizabeth Khalkho have attempted far less number of question, than the marks awarded to them in their respectiveness papers. Eve if all the marked /attempted question are taken to be correct, these candidates are awarded marks in excess and they cannot be selected. These candidates had dishonestly left blank majority of questions and had not even marked them although no negative makrs was awarded in the examination. Thus these fifteen candidates had been selected by JPSC in criminal conspiracy with them and Sri Dheeraj Kumar (petitioner). The petitioner had evaluated/scanned these OMR Answer Booklets and prepared the faulty merit list under immediate and overall supervision of Smt. Alic Usha Rani Singh, the Examination Controller. The members of the Commission furtherance of criminal conspiracy did not conduct scrutiny of such OMR Answer Booklets. Thus the petitioner Sri Dheeraj Kumar dishonestly prepared faulty mark list and assisted Examination Controller in preparation of the wrong merit list leading to the selection of undeserving candidates. A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the C.B.I bringing on record the table which showed the inflation of marks in the mark-sheet of the aforesaid fifteen candidates. It is further submitted that anticipatory bail application of accused Krishna Kant Singh vide A.B.A. No. 4196 of 2015 passed in connection with R.C 5S/2014R has been rejected by this Court and the said order has been affirmed up by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and subsequently said person has been granted bail vide order dated 06.09.2015, passed in B.A. No. 6529 of 2016, so considering all these facts, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
15. It appears that on 16.09.2016 two questions were formulated by this Court; (i) whether the point of parity, either grant of bail or rejection of a co-accused, is binding upon the Court?. (ii) Whether in earlier bail applications of other co-accused, arising of the same FIR, when certain law points were not cited or argued and anticipatory bail was rejected, other petitioners in subsequent bail applications are stopped from raising those questions of law?
16. In reply to the question no. 1 the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Hon''ble Allahabad High Court in "Shobha Ram v. State of U.P." reported in 1992 CRI. L. J. 1371;
"There could be no parity in rejection of bail application the reason is that when the bail application of one co-accused is rejected on merits, the other co-accused who is not a parity to that bail application, had no opportunity to make his submissions before the Court. It is only when he can make his assertions, which are to be heard and decided on merits by High Court. So, it cannot be said that his bail application would be liable to be rejected merely because the bail application of other co-accused had been rejected earlier".
has submitted that there is no parity in allowing or rejecting the bail application of other co-accused so the rejection of bail application of some of the accused cannot be a ground of rejection of this petitioner.
17. So far as question no. ii is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment relied on by the counsel for the C.B.I has no binding precedent.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in "Arasmeta Captive Power Company Private Limited and Another v. Lafarge India Private Limited" reported in (2013) 15 SCC 414;
32. In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others, it has been stated that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. Relying on Quinn v. Leathem it has been held that the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it.
33. Lord Halsbury in Quinn has ruled thus:
"...there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all."
34. In Krishena Kumar v. Union of India and others, the Constitution Bench, while dealing with the concept of ratio decidendi, has referred to Caledonian Railway Co. v. Walker''s Trustees and Quinn (supra) and the observations made by Sir Frederick Pollock and thereafter proceeded to state as follows:
"The ratio decidendi is the underlying principle, namely, the general reasons or the general grounds upon which the decision is based on the test or abstract from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. The ratio decidendi has to be ascertained by an analysis of the facts of the case and the process of reasoning involving the major premise consisting of a preexisting rule of law, either statutory or judge made, and a minor premise consisting of the material facts of the case under immediate consideration. If it is not clear, it is not the duty of the court to spell it out with difficulty in order to be bound by it. In the words of Halsbury "The concrete decision alone is binding between the parties to it but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, as ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which when it is clear it is not part of a tribunal''s duty to spell out with difficulty a ratio decidendi in order to bound by it, and it is always dangerous to take one or two observations out of a long judgment and treat them as if they gave the ratio decidendi of the case. If more reasons than one are given by a tribunal for its judgment, all are taken as forming the ratio decidendi."
has submitted that order is not binding precedence and further relied on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of "Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Others" reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694;
"In cases where court is of considered view that accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided and anticipatory bail should be granted, which after hearing Public Prosecutor, should ordinarily be continued till end of trial."
has submitted that during course of the trial the petitioner cooperated the investigating officer. The petitioner was not arrested. Final form has been submitted in this case, cognizance has been taken and investigation is complete there is no likelihood of this petitioner to abscond and at this stage custodial interrogation is not required, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, final form, material collected by the C.B.I against the petitioner, judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, order relied on by the counsel for the C.B.I passed in A.B.A. No.4196 of 2015 which has been dismissed in which the aforesaid two questions were not formulated by the coordinate Bench, so order is not binding precedence, final form reveals that the petitioner is a coconspirator of the occurrence, and also considering the fact that final form has been submitted in this case, cognizance has already been taken, trial will take some time, during investigation the petitioner cooperated in the investigation and he was never arrested by the I.O at that point of time, there is no likelihood of this petitioner to be abscond during trial, at this stage custodial interrogation is not required, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/( Rupees fifteen thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri B.K. Tiwary, the learned Special Judge, C.B.I at Ranchi in connection with R.C. 06(A)/2013AHDR, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to condition that one of the bailors shall be government servant. Petitioner shall deposit his pass passport (if any) before the Trial Court. If the petitioner wants exemption from appearance, he will inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from Trial Court, he may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the CBI and also appear physically before the trial court as and when directed, failing which it is open to the Trial Court to cancel bail bond of the petitioner.
20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court and a copy of this order be handed over to the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I.
