The seriousness of the offence is not the sole factor for consideration of bail. The length of detention and the right to fair trial are important factors to be taken into account. Bail can be granted even in cases of serious offences, as long as there is no flight risk, no reasonable apprehension of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and no grave threat to the interest of society.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - This is a regular bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. praying for bail by the petitioner, namely, Samedur Rahman, who is in detention in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 159/2017 registered under sections 120(B)/420/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 7/13 (1) (a) (d) (iii) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Z. Kamar and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state-respondent, Mr. M. Phukan were heard.

3. Sri Bedantha Bikash Das lodged an FIR on 17-08-2017 with the Bhangagarh Police Station alleging therein that he appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (in short APSC) for the post of Agricultural Development Officer (ADO) in the year 2014. The Chairman of the APSC, Sri Rakesh Paul and his associate middleman, one Mossaraf Hossain demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from the informant, Bedantha Bikash Das as bribe to ensure the job. Accordingly, the informant paid Rs. 50,000/- to the Chairman of the APSC, Sri Rakesh Paul at Satsang Vihar, Bhangagarh, Guwahati as advance, but the informant could not succeed in the examination, as he failed to fulfill the demand made by Sri Rakesh Paul. Later on, the informant came to know from the information supplied by the APSC on the basis of his application under the RTI Act, that there were anomalies in the marks given to the candidates in the viva-voice test. In the two replies given by the APSC to the query made under the RTI Act, different marks were shown against the same candidate. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR police registered the case, conducted investigation and initially charge-sheet was filed against the Chairman of the APSC, Sri Rakesh Paul and another. However, having regard to the larger conspiracy involved in the case, further investigation continued and several supplementary charge-sheets were filed against various accused persons.

4. The present petitioner, Samedur Rahman, who has been a member of the APSC was arrested on 31-08-2018 and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him on 26-10-2018, where he has been arrayed as accused No. 4. Accusation against the petitioner was that he being a member of the APSC entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Chairman of the APSC, Sri Rakesh Paul and other members as well as the job aspirants to provide job for cash and illegally selected the candidates for the post of ADO.

5. The prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by this Court on 12-02-2020.

6. The plea for bail of the petitioner has been resisted by filing a written objection along with a status report. The bail plea of the petitioner has been resisted inter alia, on the prime grounds that charges against the petitioner is serious, sufficient evidence has been collected against the present petitioner, inasmuch as, forensic examination report confirmed that there were manipulation by way of enhancement and reduction of marks of the candidates in their mark sheets at the time of interview with a view to give undue advantage to the candidates of their choice, necessity of joint interrogation of the petitioner with other accused on the basis of forensic report, huge amount of money transaction by way of credit through cheques surfaced in course of analysis of the bank statement of the petitioner, possibility of hampering the investigation by the petitioner by way of tempering evidence and the apprehension of influencing the witnesses by the petitioner.

7. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Z. Kamar strenuously arguing for admitting the petitioner on bail made the following submission :-

The petitioner was not named in the FIR and there was no material to suggest that he took bribe from any candidate, inasmuch as, specific allegation of taking bribe was against the Chairman, Sri Rakesh Paul. On earlier occasion when the bail petition of the petitioner was considered, the prosecution resisted the petition on the plea, that joint inter