Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 93 (GAU)

Atika Sultana v. State Of Assam

2022-02-01

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this application under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioner, namely, Atika Sultana has sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with Vigilance PS Case No. 05/2021, under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC, read with Sections 13(1)(a)/13(2) of the PC Act (Amendment) Act, 2018. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties are present, who have already been heard. 3. I have also gone through the Case Diary. 4. Sodow Assam Gaon Burah Santha, West Zone lodged a complaint signed by 29 members, including the Secretary, before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Assam, at Guwahati, on 30.09.2021, which was registered as CM Vigilance Case No. 05/2021, alleging inter alia, that the then Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara, Ms. Atika Sultana and ADC Saibar Rahman, along with other Government officials, committed gross irregularities in the appointment of posts of Village Headman (Gaonburah) and they had illegally appointed 70 numbers of Village Headman, taking bribe of Rs. 5 to 12 lacs, against each post. 5. During investigation, it was found that said Saibur Rahman, ADC, along with present petitioner, the DC and other officials, including Circle Officer, has indulged in unfair means in the process of selection, by way of illegal gratification from their favourite candidates. 6. At the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been laid against Saibur Rahman, with submission that investigation so far as regards the present petitioner and others are going on and supplementary charge sheet will be laid under Section 173(8) CrPC. 7. The petitioner, herein, contended that after three years of selection, the present FIR has been lodged. It is submitted that selection of Gaonburah were done through a Committee, constituted under the Schemes/Rules and the Committee recommended the names of the selected candidates and duty of the petitioner as Deputy Commissioner, was only to ratify and to accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee and she was not a Member of the Selection Committee and not involved. 8. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has undergone seven numbers of ventral hernia surgery since 1990 to December 2021 and lastly, she also suffered from COVID-19 and has sought for the privilege of pre-arrest bail with an undertaking to co-operate with the investigation. 9. This Court carefully gone through the materials in the Case Diary as well as the report of the IO. 10. 9. This Court carefully gone through the materials in the Case Diary as well as the report of the IO. 10. Certain discrepancies that have been surfaced during the investigation, is discussed below:- (1) In the selected list of candidates, certain persons were found to be selected but those persons were absent on the day of examination and those select list were duly signed by the present petitioner along with other Board Members. While confronted to the aforesaid, they admitted the same as a mistake. (2) On the basis of the materials, the I/O has noted its finding that accused persons had selected their candidates in lieu of illegal gratification by depriving deserving candidates, which proves their criminal conspiracy and intent. (3) Some of the candidates who applied for the posts of Village Headman against certain specific Lot areas (as per the guidelines, the applicant should be a domicile of the said village/lot), were allotted different lots by overwriting in the list of candidates whose applications were accepted. However, no initials for such corrections were found to be signed by the accused circle officer. Some were even allotted different villages under different lots which were not in conformity with the guidelines for the recruitment process. (4) To accommodate their favourable candidates who gratified the accused persons, they selected the candidates belonging to the same villages (during field verification, the residences of 3 selected candidates were found adjacent to each other) which is not in conformity with the guidelines of recruitment to the post of Village Headman. (5) The accused person kept spaces in certain columns empty to be filled up later on against the names of their favourable candidates. 11. In their statements, various unsuccessful candidates as witnesses have stated that they were directed to deposit money for their selection before Board members and because of inability to provide the same, they were not selected. The various members of the committee constituted for selection have stated that they have no knowledge about the scrutiny of the applications nor any meeting was held to apprise their duty. In their statements they have stated that they were not aware about the procedure adopted by the other members of the committee. 12. The various members of the committee constituted for selection have stated that they have no knowledge about the scrutiny of the applications nor any meeting was held to apprise their duty. In their statements they have stated that they were not aware about the procedure adopted by the other members of the committee. 12. The petitioner was the Chairman of the Selection Committee and she has also admitted about the so many anomalies in the entire selection but she cannot eschew from the liability as she being the Chairman of the Committee conducted the entire selection of Village Headman (Government Gaonburah). 13. From the materials so far collected, it reveals that selection was made in total disregard to the Government Notification. The I/O upon examination of the different files in this regard also noted about illegal appointment as alleged in the FIR. The ignorance shown by the petitioner as to how appointment was given in some cases where there was no village, and persons from different Lot to which they not applied for etc. etc. is not acceptable from a responsible public servant. 14. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the law relating to corruption by a public servant is a distinct offence than that of general offence and the investigation of such cases should be carried out in a fair manner and the very object of the Act was to make effective provisions for prevention of rampant corruption among the public servants. It has been submitted that Hon'be Supreme Court also held that bail should not be granted in economic offences of huge magnitude affecting public money and property and the investigation should be granted time to carry out effective investigation. In support of his contention, following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been placed, which are as under: 1) (1984) 2 Supreme Court Cases 183, R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay. 2) (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 88, State of M.P. and Others v. Ram Singh. 3) (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 446, Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh Alias Lalla Babu and Another. 4) (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation. 5) (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation. 6) (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 682, Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. 15. 4) (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation. 5) (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation. 6) (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 682, Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. 15. In view of the discussions made above and having regard to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of prearrest bail, which is accordingly rejected. 16. Return the case diary.