Jharkhand High Court
Munendra Kumar vs The Union Of India Through Central ... on 19 August, 2023
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 6288 of 2023
------
Munendra Kumar .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to ASGI
------
Order No.02 / Dated : 19.08.2023 The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 05(A)/2020-D of 20 for the offence registered under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. cum Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad, is pressed into motion.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that petitioner obtained public employment through competitive examination, in which other candidates appeared on their behalf to take the examination.
On written complaint dated 03.02.2020 of Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO), Dhanbad case has been registered against the petitioners. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that during the period 2014 onwards, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Abhishek Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Saket Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Ritesh Kumar, Nagmani Kumar Paswan, Chandan Kumar, Nitesh Kumar, Dhiraj Kumar, Amit Ranjan, Mukesh Kumar Paswan, Munendra Kumar, the then LDC (now SSA) entered into criminal conspiracy amongst themselves with a view to cheat CMPFO, Dhanbad in conspiracy with unknown officials of CMPFO, Dhanbad. In pursuance thereof, the unknown persons dishonestly and fraudulently appeared in the online examination and skill (typing) test in place of the accused persons to facilitate them in securing the post of LDCs in CMPFO and thereby get employment and salary and other benefits from CMPFO.
It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that they are Lower Division Clerks in CMPFO. The main allegation against them is that they got selected in the competitive examination by impersonation. It is submitted that petitioner has served with CMPFO since 2015 and the case has been lodged in 2020. The only material is that thumb impression taken of the candidate appearing in the examination on the attendance sheet, does not match with these petitioners. Reliance is placed on Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Versus Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Another (Civil Appeal No.7818-7819 of 2009) wherein it has been held that the opinion of expert is a weak evidence and not substantive in nature.
During investigation, the petitioner was not at all arrested and charge sheet has been submitted. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sidhartha Versus State of U.P. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Aman Preet Singh Vs CBI, 2021 SCC Online SC 941, no further purpose would be served to arrest the accused. The Departmental proceeding was initiated against this petitioner which has been set aside by the order of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.2066 of 2020.
Learned ASGI has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the allegation of impersonation is based on expert opinion collected during investigation in which it has come that they got some other persons to appear in the examination and in the skill test on their behalf.
Considering the submissions made, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit