IMPORTANT POINT
Scope of section 438, Cr. P.C.

JUDGMENT

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 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 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.

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