Patna High Court - Orders
/Dr.Ram Krishna Prasad Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vig. on 29 October, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.19678 of 2009
ANIL KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri S.M.P. Singh, resident of Nageshwar Colony, Boring
Road, PS Budha Colony, District Patna - Petitioner.
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIG.
With
Cr. Misc. No. 20192 of 2009
Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, son of late shiladitya Narain Singh, resident of
Mohalla Kadamkuan, Town + District Patna. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
With
Cr. Misc. No. 32184 of 2009
Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh @ Dr. R.K.P. Singh, Son of late Purendu Prasad
Singh, Resident of Mohalla Parmanand Path, Nageshwar Colony, P.S. Budha Colony,
District Patna. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through Vigilance Department, Patna.
---------
4 4 .11.2009Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in a case under sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B of the Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
This matter relates to the evaluation of marks of examination held in 2002 with respect to Diploma in Pharmacy (Part II).
The allegations, in brief, are that extra marks were allotted to some of the candidates, the answer sheets were changed, some of the answer sheets were re-written. The favorites were given higher marks. Dr. P.N. Singh of Banaras Hindu University ('B.H.U.' for short) arranged for the students to rewrite their copies at will in his village home. Dr. P.N. Singh was not the proper candidate chosen for 2 the purposes of correction/evaluation of the marks sheets since he had been debarred by the Vice Chancellor of the B.H.U. some time back. The candidates who did not appear in the examination were allotted marks. The management of the Bihar College of Pharmacy managed to secure extra marks for the students of its college. Dr. Sharma, the Controller of Examination had demanded money from the students for allocation of marks and the evaluation was not done in accordance with the direction of the State Government in the Higher Education Department i.e. Centralized Evaluation of the answer sheets.
Before discussing the individual cases of the petitioners certain letters which are part of the F.I.R. and the investigation may be referred to by this court. The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department addressed a letter to the Controller of Examination bearing no. 495(1), dated 11.7.2007 in which it has been stated that the State Government has taken a decision that the evaluation of the answer sheets for examination of Diploma in Pharmacy would be under the Control of the Principal, Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna. It was advised that the evaluation of the answer sheets should be centralized. Mr. M.L. Verma, the then Principal in response to letter dated 11.7.2007 addressed a letter dated 30.7.2007 to the Deputy Secretary of the Department stating therein that there is only one institution which teaches Diploma in Pharmacy in Bihar and there is one in Jharkhand. It has been pointed out that the students who have appeared in the examination belonged to the said institutions and, therefore, it does not seem possible that the evaluation can be done at 3 Patna. The Deputy Secretary then vide letter no. 837(1), dated 17.10.2008 addressed to Dr. R.K.P. Singh who had joined as Incharge Principal of P.M.C.H. on 10.8.2007 was given directions that (a) that the answer sheets should be evaluated at B.H.U. i.e. that the centralized evaluation of the answer sheets should take place and (b) that the centralized evaluation would be under the control of Dr. S.N. Sharma, the Examination Controller who would be responsible for the evaluation work. The Vigilance Department relies on this document to show that the petitioner-Principal and the other petitioners have not followed the directions of the State Government and have thereby facilitated the rigging of the marks obtained by the students in the examination in question.
In pursuance of the evaluation work, Dr. R.K.P. Singh, the ten Principal appointed Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, Assistant Professor, Physiology, P.M.C.H. and Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Assistant Professor Forensic Medicine, P.M.C.H. as his team members.
Apart from what has been stated aforesaid the allegations are that Dr. Anil Kumar Singh and Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh were to go over to the B.H.U. to hand over the answer sheets for the purpose of evaluation. Petitioner Anil Kumar Singh was also entrusted the work of holding the answer sheets before finally sealed for the purposes of being sent to B.H.U. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the records of investigation of the Vigilance Department reveals that apart from 4 doing the work of coding of answer sheets, Dr. Anil Kumar Singh in fact did not go to B.H.U. to hand over the answer sheets for evaluation and, therefore, it has been submitted on his behalf that it cannot be said that he had any connection with the evaluation of the answer sheets in any manner whatsoever. This fact would be revealed from the statements given by Prof. P.N. Singh, the gentleman who had allegedly given the marks to all the students and against whom there are grave allegations.
The allegations against Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh is that he along with Dr. S.N. Sharma, the Controller of Examination went to Banaras to hand over the sealed answer sheets to Dr. P.N. Singh. Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, however, had played no other role except handing over of answer sheets after which he returned back to Patna. It is submitted on behalf of Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh that as far as he is concerned, he was only a courier of the answer sheets. He did not have any knowledge with respect to the coding and he only acted on the directions of the Principal and as such it cannot be said that he was in conspiracy with Dr. P.N. Singh. There is specific allegation in the F.I.R. that it was on the advice of Dr. Sharma that the Department decided to get the papers evaluated at B.H.U. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that Dr. Sharma had accompanied Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh when he was carrying evaluation papers to B.H.U. and it was in his presence that the papers were handed over to Dr. P.N. Singh.
Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. R.K.P. Singh has submitted that the allegation that petitioner 5 was responsible for choosing the B.H.U. or responsible for conducting the evaluation process is completely untrue in view of the fact that the Deputy Secretary of the Department by its letters, dated 17.10.2008 and 11.7.2007 has specifically made the Controller of Examination as Incharge of conducting centralized evaluation at B.H.U. The only role by this petitioner was to appoint Dr. Anil Kumar Singh who did the coding of the answer sheets and Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh who went to hand over the answer sheets at B.H.U. The Principal had no contact with Dr. P.N. Singh nor was he responsible for choosing B.H.U. as the centre where the evaluation was to be done. In fact, it is submitted that by letter no. 859(1), dated 17.10.2008 literally the power had been divested and the Controller of Examination was made full-fledged Incharge of conduct of evaluation.
Counsel for the Vigilance Department in this context has argued that Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh ought to have handed over the answer sheets to the Head of the Department and not to Dr. P.N. Singh. This argument for the purpose of bail is not very relevant. Firstly, it could have been that the Head of the Department had asked Dr. P.N. Singh to take the answer sheets and secondly that the Controller of Examination was present at the time of handing over of the answer sheets, it was his duty to ensure that the answer sheets were handed over in a proper manner. In fact, the offences alleged in the F.I.R. which related to bungling with the answer sheets by granting marks or extra marks to students was done by Dr. P.N. Sharma. Therefore, it has been submitted that it cannot be argued on 6 behalf of the Vigilance Department that the petitioners were responsible for bungling that took place at Banaras or can be held to be in connivance or conspiracy with Dr. P.N. Singh and for that matter with Dr. S.N. Sharma, the Controller of Examination.
Whatever be the merits of the arguments, the petitioners, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh alias Dr. R.K.P. Singh are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender within six weeks, in Special Case No. 41/2009, arising out of Vigilance PS Case No. 49/2009, on furnishing bail bonds of rupees ten thousand each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)