Smt. Anshu Dubey And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C.(A) No. 270 of 2016
1. Smt. Anshu Dubey, D/o. Shri Ramkripal Dubey, Aged About 29 Years, Caste Brahman, Occupation Service (Shiksha Karmi Grade-III), R/o. Village Krishnapur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Shushma Choubey, W/o. Shri Jagarnath Choubey, Aged About 42 Years, Caste Brahman, Occupation Service (Shiksha Karmi Grade III), R/o. Village Jarhi, P.S. Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ----Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ashok K. Shukla with Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 30/03/2016 1.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.263/2015 registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) (d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the applicants have preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Page No.2 2.
As per the prosecution case, the applicants were appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat- Surajpur in the year 2007. Subsequently, on enquiry being made, it was found that the applicant No.1, Anshu Dubey, had not submitted any documents, but she was given number for Scout & Guide & Sports Certificate and applicant No.2, Shushma Choubey, was given number for Sports Certificate and thereafter in connivance with the selection committee, they got themselves selected, thereby the eligible candidates were deprived of their right.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that, they have not submitted any documents and only on the basis of the number given by the selection committee, they were selected. He would further submit that the applicants were selected on their own merits. He further submits that the FIR is delayed by 7 years and there is no custodial interrogation is required. It is further submitted that caesarian operation has been performed to the applicant No.1, Anshu Dubey, and six months baby was born and she is directed for bed rest as per Annexure A-6, therefore, she may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
4.
Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that according to the case diary though the applicants did not submit any documents, but they managed to procure the numbers in connivance with the selection committee and were got selected. It is submitted that charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the applicants are still absconding, therefore, the applicants may not be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Page No.3 5.
Perused the case diary and documents and the statement of Manoj Mandal and D.K.Nigam wherein it is stated that despite certain documents i.e. certificates were not deposited, the respective candidates were given numbers and as many as 99 candidates were selected and subsequently on enquiry it was found that though the certificates were not given but they have been selected by giving numbers. Consequently, the involvement of the applicants in procuring the job in connivance with the selection committee in the background of the facts can not be denied.
6.
Perused the medical certificate of the applicant No.1, Anshu Dubey, which is placed on record as Annexure A-5 & A-6 wherein it is stated that she has been operated and a Baby was born by caesarian operation. Considering the medical certificate whereby the applicant No.1 was directed for bed-rest and the fact that she has to look after her Baby of 6-7 months, only on the medical ground, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant No.1. However, with respect to the applicant No.2, Shushma Chouey, considering the documents and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant No.2. 7.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed only in respect of the applicant No.1, Anshu Dubey, and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.1 in connection with the aforesaid offence, she shall be released on bail by the officer arresting her on furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant No.1 shall also abide by the following conditions :
Page No.4 (i) that the applicant No.1 shall make herself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant No.1 shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicant No.1 shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok