P.SATHASIVAM, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.9.2011 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. 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 J.P.S.C."), 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, 477-A, 120-B, 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "the I.P.C.") 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 No. 1 in the Interview Board for holding interview from 28.1.2008 to 1.2.2008. He was selected by the Members of the Expert Committee including the Chairman of the J.P.S.C. (c) The allegations against the appellant, Chairman and other Members of file J.P.S.C. 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 J.P.S.C. 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 J.P..S.C. in conducting Second J.P.S.C. 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 J.P.S.C. 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 "F.I.R.") was lodged against several persons including the appellant. (e) By order dated 1.8.2011, 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 21.9.2011, the High Court confirmed the order of the Special Judge and dismissed his petition for anticipatory bail. Heard Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand. After taking us through all the materials including the F.I.R. and the allegations pertaining to the present appellant, Mr. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the F.I.R. except for stating that the appellant was one of the Expert, there is nothing which can even remotely connect the appellant with any offence much less the offences alleged therein. He also submitted that the appellant who hails from District Pithora- garh, Uttarakhand, presently posted at Faridabad, Haryana has no relatives, friends or kinsmen in the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, had no reason or motive to favour anybody and in that event be a part of any conspiracy to commit the alleged crime. He further pointed out the role of the appellant as Expert Member was only to award marks to each candidate on a separate sheet and had nothing to do beyond it. He also pointed out that the observation of the High Court in the impugned order rejecting his anticipatory bail application on the ground that the appellant stands on a similar footing as that of other accused is factually incorrect inasmuch as the appellant cannot be equated with the case of other Experts who belong to the State of Jharkhand and are alleged to be related or known to candidates and, therefore, had no reason or motive to commit the alleged crime. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that considering the serious nature of the crime and of the fact that the appellant's initial selection as expert is itself contrary to the rules and several manipulations have been done by all the persons concerned in the selection panel, it is not a fit case in which the anticipatory bail is to be granted. We have carefully perused the relevant materials and considered the rival contentions.
(3.) INASMUCH as we are concerned about the eligibility or otherwise relating to grant of anticipatory bail, there is no need to go into all the factual details and arrive a finding one way or the other which will affect the ultimate trial of the case. We have already referred to the offences alleged in the F.I.R. It is settled law that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right. With this background, we have to see that whether a case has been made out for grant of anticipatory bail. It is not in dispute that he is not a regular Member of the J.P.S.C. Admittedly, he is in Central Government service and he was nominated as Expert No. 1 by the Board. Thought it is pointed out that his nomination itself is bad, that is not a relevant issue at this moment. Mr. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant pointed out his higher academic qualifications. All those details are available in Annexure- P1 which shows that the appellant possesses qualifications of M. Com., (Gold Medallist) and holder of 5 Ph.Ds. He is a Professor and Co-ordinator in Fellow Programme and Management in National Institute of Financial Management of the Central Government and he has an experience of 16 years as Professor since 21.10.1994. He has 13 years administrative experience as Head of the Department of Business Administration and 13 years experience as Dean in the School of Management Studies. The appellant has specialization in Human Resources Management, Organisational behaviour and Entrepreneurship Development and besides that, he has experience on International Exposure of visiting Professor in other foreign countries. It is also pointed out that the appellant has been a regular expert in the Selection Committees of U.G.C., A.I.C.T.E., I.C.S.S.R. and other Universities. He has to his credit the authorship of numerous Research/Reference Books and Textbooks. Recently on 26.5.2011, the appellant was awarded "Shiksha Rattan Pu- raskar" by H.E. the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh. It is also brought to our notice that in July, 2011, Hon'ble the President of India based on the academic qualification of the appellant nominated him as her nominee for recruitment of Assistant/Associate Professors in the Faculty of Commerce and Management in the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amar Kantak, Madhya Pradesh. The above details show that the appellant has excellent academic career. In the F.I.R., the appellant has been named as accused No. 7. Though it is pointed out that the appellant has given highest marks to the candidates who were given only 10 marks by the Chairman of the Interview Board, it is not in dispute that he is not a Member of the J.P.S.C. Board nor belongs to Jharkhand State. As stated earlier, he was selected as specialized member for a short period only. Mr. Lalit has also taken us through the chart showing marks given by experts including the present appellant - Expert No. 1, Expert No. 2 and the Chairman Shanti Devi. Interestingly, the Chairman has allotted 10 marks to each of the candidate irrespective of his/her performance. We are not here to assess and give a finding whether the marks awarded by the appellant (Expert No. 1) is excessive or unreasonable. All those things have to be analyzed only at the time of trial by way of evidence. ;