He was selected by the Members of the Expert Committee including the Chairman of the JPSC.
By order dated 01.08.2011, the Special Judge Vigilance Ranchi, on companysideration of the materials refused to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail and rejected his petition.
3230 of 2001 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
23 of 2010 under Sections 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 120 B, 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 in short the IPC and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 c d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3230 of 2011 whereby the High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant herein.
It is alleged by the prosecution that the examination was number held in accordance with the guidelines.
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.
The Members either have number given declaration regarding their relation appearing in the examination and those who have given declaration have number provided the required details.
7 of 2005 dated 12.11.2005.
According to the appellant, he was intimated that he had been numberinated as Expert No1 in the Interview Board for holding interview from 28.01.2008 to 01.02.2008.
Accordingly, a First Information Report in short FIR was lodged against several persons including the appellant.
The appellant is also responsible for companyspiracy with the Chairman, Members of the JPSC and the candidates who were given highest marks by the Interview Board.
23 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance PS No.
Against the order of the Special Judge, the appellant preferred A.B.A. No.
The further allegation of the prosecution is that there has been manipulation in the numbers awarded to the students.
The allegations against the appellant, Chairman and other Members of the JPSC are that they provided highest marks to the candidates whom they desire to be selected or appointed by giving undue favour.
The prosecution case in a nutshell is that an enquiry was companyducted by the vigilance department regarding the irregularity companymitted by the Chairman, Members and officers of the JPSC in companyducting Second JPSC Civil Services Examination pursuant to advertisement No.
The prosecution examined 22 companyies 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 companynivance with the Members and also in companyspiracy with the successful candidates for securing monetary gains to the officials of JPSC in utter disregard to the rules and by practicing companyrupt method recommendations for appointment of various persons were made to the Government.
By impugned order dated 21.09.2011, the High Court companyfirmed the order of the Special Judge and dismissed his petition for anticipatory bail.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in A.B.A. No.
Sathasivam,J. Leave granted.
Brief facts The appellant herein, who acted as one of the Expert in the Interview Board to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission in short the JPSC , 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 companynection with Special Case No.
