The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The court held that enquiry findings and student statements substantiated the allegations of cheating, making the petitioner ineligible for bail.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3432 of 2015
Bikram Mandal, S/o late Musafir Mandal, R/o Village + P.O. Bouria, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Dumka.
….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. … Opposite Party
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-------- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : APP For the J.A.C. : Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, Sr. Advocate
12/04-04-2016 Heard the parties.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Nala P.S. Case No. 132 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 756 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
An FIR was instituted, in which it was alleged that the petitioner had taken money from several students in order to enhance their marks.
Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case as neither the petitioner has been posted in the said school nor the petitioner was in any way involved in evaluation of the answer sheets.
It has been submitted that even Unfair Means Committee did not give any finding with respect to the involvement of the petitioner in taking money for enhancement of marks of the students. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for J.A.C., has submitted that an enquiry was conducted, in which the students namely Narasingh Soren, Mithun Murmu and Surajdev Hembram had given specific statements that the petitioner was paid certain amounts in order to enhance their marks in the examination.
It has been submitted that the statement made before the High Ranking Officials had been supported by the said three students at the time of giving statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and which has been recorded at paragraphs 44 and 45 of the case
-2-
diary. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the affidavit, which has subsequently been brought on record by the petitioner, seems to have been procured as the individual affidavit contains the same language and such circumstances cannot obliterate either the statement made before the committee or before the police by the said students. Learned senior counsel has also referred to paragraph 14 & 15 of the case diary, which contains the statement of Block Development Officer and Circle Officer substantiating the allegations made against the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P., has referred to paragraph 33 of the case diary and has submitted that variation of the signatures were found by the committee and it had also found that whitener was used in the answer sheets.
It appears that involvement of the petitioner has come on the basis of the enquiry conducted, in which apart from the said students, many students have given statements that they have paid money for enhancing their marks. The statements of Narasingh Soren, Mithun Murmu and Surajdev Hembram so made before the competent authority cannot be ignored. Moreover, the students had also given statement before the police under section 164 Cr.P.C. stating the same facts as they had given before the committee. Although affidavit has been brought on record of the said students denying making such statements but the same is a subsequent development, which cannot wash out the earlier statement made by the students.
In view of the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, which has been found to be true in course of enquiry, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence his prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in an FIR alleging cheating for enhancing student marks.
Whether the findings of the enquiry, including statements of students and committee reports, negate the petitioner's claim of false implication to warrant bail.
Bikram Mandal
State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
