Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 47 (PAT)

Shyam Bihari Rai v. State Of Bihar

2001-01-17

D.P.S.CHOUDHARY

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner (Shyam Bihari Rai) in Magadh University P.S. Case No. 64 of 2000 corresponding to Special Case No. 30 of 2000 for an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471. 474, 109, 116, 119, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Act. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was earlier Professor of English in Bihta College of the University. By notification dated 24.5.1999 of the Magadh University he joined the University office on 27.5.1999 as Examination Controller and before that he had no concern with any of the related works in the University office as he was working as a Professor of English in a college at Bihta. According to the FIR, a public interest litigation was brought by one Pramod Kumar Chandrawanshi (CWJC No. 7146 of 1998) and in that writ this Court by its order dated 26.9.2000 ordered for lodging an FIR against six public servants against whom the charges were levelled in the writ petition. 3. Admittedly the petitioner was not named at that time. The case related with one Shikha Gupta, wife of Sri Anurag Gupta, an I.P.S. Officer was illegally admitted on 19.12.1995 in M.A. History in the Session 19S3-95 and was allowed to appear at 1996 examination. It is alleged that she appeared at only 1st paper examination but was illegally shown to have appeared in other seven papers also. She was given forged marks-sheet dated 25.3.1998 showing her passed with first division. It is further alleged that without requisite qualification she was appointed along with one Jalil Akhtar Olayee as Lecturer in Law Department of A.M.C. College of Magadh University. She did not take any class but was paid salary by cheque in 1997 and 1998. The details are given in the FIR. The whole matter was enquired by a retired District Judge under the orders of the Chancellor. He submitted report dated 3.8.1999. In that report also at no place the petitioner has figured. She did not take any class but was paid salary by cheque in 1997 and 1998. The details are given in the FIR. The whole matter was enquired by a retired District Judge under the orders of the Chancellor. He submitted report dated 3.8.1999. In that report also at no place the petitioner has figured. The main allegation of illegally admitting Smt. Shikha Gupta in M.A. was against the Principal of Gaya College and with regard to illegal appointment of Shikha Gupta and Jalil Akhtar Olayee was made Shri S.C. Mookherji, the then Vice-Chancellor and also against the then Registrar and Principal of the then A.M. College, Dr. Mazahar Hussain. In these circumstances the entire period of occurrence is in between 1995 and. 1998 when admittedly the petitioner has joined on 27.5.1999 as Controller of Examination, Magadh University. 4. The next contention of the petitioner as per the FIR (Annexure-1) at page 17 of the last paragraph the allegation levelled against him is that in spite of knowledge of all the facts both, the present Vics-Chancellor of the Magadh University, Shri Brajnandan Rout and present Controller of Examination, Shri Shyam Bihari Rai (petitioner) FIR No. 44 of 2000 dated 25.6.2000 has been lodged against unknown and as per the rule no step was taken by the petitioner to notify the cancellation of the degree of Smt. Shikha Gupta to all the concerned University/Department and public in general and thereby he allowed Smt. Shikha Gupta to use her forged M.A. degree in spite its cancellation. There is no other allegation levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. The contention of the petitioner is that at best if the charges levelled against the petitioner is admitted then it may be a case of laches in his official duty on his part but he cannot be held liable for an offence under Section 420 and other sections read with 120-B and 201 of the IPC. Section 120-B relates with a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence. The alleged criminal offence with regard to Smt. Shikha Guptas and Mr. Jalil Akhtars case was committed with the connivance of the officials of the Magadh University much before the joining of the petitioner in the University. In this circumstances the case of criminal conspiracy prima facie has got no application against the petitioner. 5. The alleged criminal offence with regard to Smt. Shikha Guptas and Mr. Jalil Akhtars case was committed with the connivance of the officials of the Magadh University much before the joining of the petitioner in the University. In this circumstances the case of criminal conspiracy prima facie has got no application against the petitioner. 5. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor while directing the petitioner to lodged FIR in his order dated 24.6.2000 has mentioned "I strongly raise my view that all sincere as well as humanly possible efforts must be made by all concerned to identify the persons responsible in this episode. However, at this point of time, appreciating the graveness of the facts and circumstances of this matter, I order the Controller of Examination to lodged an FIR with the local police station against the wrong doers of this case, even if they are still unidentified." From this part of the order of the Vice- Chancellor it is clear that all the wrong doers were still not identified till that date but the FIR was to be lodged immediately as per his direction and in compliance of his direction, the petitioner has lodged the FIR. 6. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the then Vice-Chancellor, Shri S.C. Mookherji and then Registrar have already been admitted to anticipatory bail vide Cr.Misc. No. 82403 of 2000 and Cr. Misc. No. 34907 of 2000 respectively. The case of this petitioner stands on much better footing. 7. The contention of the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the CBI is that there is clear case of connivance and of criminal conspiracy against the petitioner. Though he has joined the office as Controller of Examination on 2.5.1999 and the alleged offence is of earlier date but from his conduct it is clear that he is trying to shield the officials of the University who were directly involved in this grave offence. In spite of direction by the Vice-Chancellor, contained in his letter dated 24.6.2000 he took no pains or effort to identify the persons responsible in this episode and thereafter to file FIR against them. On the other hand, in a routine manner he has filed FIR against unknown which shows his complicity in this episode. In spite of direction by the Vice-Chancellor, contained in his letter dated 24.6.2000 he took no pains or effort to identify the persons responsible in this episode and thereafter to file FIR against them. On the other hand, in a routine manner he has filed FIR against unknown which shows his complicity in this episode. There is no explanation on his behalf that why he did not issue an official notice in the leading newspapers stating therein that Magadh University has cancelled the M.A. degree of Smt. Shikha Gupta and thereby allowed her to use the degree in her favour. The main contention of the petitioner with regard to this submission was that the publication of the notice in the newspaper was not his direct responsibility as per the University Rule but being executive head it was the responsibility of the Registrar of the University and under his seal and signature this notice ought to have been published in the papers or at the concerned places. The learned lawyer of the CBI filed a supplementary affidavit and submitted that the petitioner is not co-operating with the police and not producing the relevant documents to facilitate the investigation of the case and as such, it is another ground for not allowing him anticipatory bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the attribution alleged against this petitioner and also considering the fact that the then Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of the University have already been admitted to anticipatory bail his prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. Let the petitioner in the event of his arrest or surrender be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 30 of 2000 arising out of Magadh University P.S. Case No. 64 of 2000; subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.