Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2360 of 2015 ---- Anjela Hansda @ Angela Hansda, W/o late Samuel Murmu, R/o Dudhani, Dumka, P.O. P.S. Subdivision & District-Dumka, Jharkhand. ……..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance …Opposite Party -------- Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. Shailesh, APP -------- 07/09.09.2015 Pursuant to the order dated 25th August, 2015, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, is physically present along with up to date case diary. Heard Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the Vigilance. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2010, corresponding to Special Case No. 29 of 2010, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 201, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 109 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier moved this Hon'ble Court for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 802 of 2012, which was however, dismissed as withdrawn in view of the fact that no material was found against the petitioner to prosecute him. It has further been submitted that in view of the changed circumstances and warrant of arrest having been issued against the petitioner pursuant to a new investigating officer taking charge of the investigation, the petitioner has been constrained to move this Hon'ble Court for grant of anticipatory bail. It has also been submitted that the basis for initiation of the case is an order passed in CWJC No. 1140 of 2001 but the same does not relate to illegal transfer, promotion of teachers and it is only related to the transfer of the then District Superintendent of Education-Smt. Punam Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner from the office of Lokayukt, to which the petitioner had duly given a reply and upon consideration -2- of the same, an order was passed on 25.01.1995 to the effect that the entire proceeding was closed on the ground that there was no positive evidence with respect to the charge of corruption against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 16 sub section (2) of the Bihar Lokayukt Act, 1973 to substantiate his contention that once the Lokayut has taken a decision absolving the petitioner from the charges levelled against her, it is not liable to be challenged, reviewed or called into question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his earlier submission to the effect that since no material could be found against the petitioner to prosecute her, the same was noted in paragraph 107 of the case diary, but subsequently after change of guard, warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further adds while referring to the letter dated 2nd December, 2002 and the corresponding letter, which has also been annexed to suggest that there is an apparent interpolation in the subsequent letter in order to show that the petitioner was responsible for the transfer, promotion and inspection with respect to a stenographer. It has been submitted that one of the accused namely Birendra Prasad Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 06.01.2012 in ABA No. 1246 of 2011 and another accused namely Kabindra Kumar Singh has also been granted anticipatory bail on 07.07.2015 in ABA No. 1082 of 2015. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has already superannuated in the year 2008 itself. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the Vigilance, has made a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the anticipatory bail application in view of the fact that it has been recorded in ABA No. 802 of 2012 that after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought permission to withdraw this application. It has, therefore, been submitted that such order cannot be reviewed by this Court. Moreover, learned counsel for the Vigilance, has submitted that the petitioner in spite of withdrawing her anticipatory bail application, did not choose to surrender and has renewed her prayer for anticipatory bail based on the same set of allegations, which were already there on the earlier occasion. -3- Mr. Shailesh submits that the investigating officer on account of the misconduct on his part while investigating the case has been reprimanded and an order of Censure has been passed against him. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, has produced the record of original preliminary enquiry, held by the Vigilance Department and has mostly relied upon the enquiry report submitted by Mr. S.S. Tiwari, which according to learned counsel for the Vigilance, has considered each and every aspect of the matter and based on such enquiry, it can be said that the petitioner was the main person, who was responsible for doing illegal acts with respect to promotion, transfer etc. It has been submitted that although Mr. S.S. Tiwari, was initially not examined as a witness but subsequently he has been examined and he has categorically supported the finding given by him in his enquiry report, which finds place at paragraph 105 of the case diary. After considering the rival submissions, it appears that on the earlier occasion, A.B.A. No. 802 of 2012 was withdrawn by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the earlier investigating officer had recorded at paragraph 103 of the case diary that the allegation levelled against the petitioner was found to be false. In such circumstances, it was but natural that there was no apprehension of arrest of the petitioner but since in view of the fact that on the prayer of the subsequent investigating officer, warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, there is an apprehension and in such circumstances, considering the anticipatory bail application afresh in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be construed to mean reviewing the earlier order. The entire case of the Vigilance is based on the enquiry report of Mr. S.S. Tiwari and although he was not earlier examined but subsequently had been examined after the earlier investigating officer was reprimanded. Moreover, it appears that the entire issue in question had been considered by the Lokayukt, Bihar and specific finding was given that no charge of corruption was proved against the petitioner. The investigation is being carried on since long and save and except the statement of Mr. S.S. Tiwari recorded at paragraph 105 of the case diary, no other officer has been examined -4- as a witness. The investigation, as has been noted above, is pending since long and in view of the entire facts noted above, I feel inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from today and pray for regular bail, and in that event, she will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri Md. Shakil, learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2010, corresponding to Special Case No. 29 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Personal appearance of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance is dispensed with. ( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/