news details |
|
|
| Pre-arrest bail denied to CEO Jammu | | | JAMMU, Dec 10: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Mr. Sanjay Dhar today rejected the anticipatory bail application of Tarsem Lal presently posted as Chief Education Jammu who was booked by the State Vigilance Organization Jammu. According to the VOJ case that FIR No. 30/2014 stands registered on the basis of findings returned in a Joint Surprise Check(JSC) conducted by Vigilance Organization to verify the allegations regarding bungling in the selection of Class-IV employees in Education Department by Chief Education Officer, Jammu. It has been established during JSC that 90 candidates were selected as Class-IV employees and out of these, 15 candidates had not even submitted their application forms before the concerned Zonal Education Officer in pursuance to the advertisement notice. It has also been revealed that in respect of 13 selected candidates, their academic marks/points have been fraudulently increased in order to confer undue benefit upon these candidates. The findings of JSC further reveal that 6 selected candidates did not appear for the interview and despite this they were selected by raising their academic marks/points. Thus according to the findings of JSC, 33 undeserving candidates out of 90 selected candidates, figured in the select list issued by petitioner in his capacity as Chief Education Officer, Jammu. According to the prosecution the same has been done in violation of various Govt. Orders on the subject issued from time to time. In the backdrop of these facts, it has been contended that petitioner has abused his official position and has entered into a conspiracy with beneficiaries as well as other officials/ officers of Education Department. Offences u/s 5(1) (d) r/w 5(2) P.C Act and S.120-B, 466,468,471 RPC are alleged to have been committed by petitioner and some other officials/officers as well as beneficiaries. Court observed that It is true that petitioner is a district level officer but it is also a fact that being head of his office he has control over the records of the office. In order to unravel the magnitude of the fraud and collect the evidence regarding the allegations made in the FIR, the relevant record of Chief Education Office, Jammu has to be seized. The investigation of the case is at its inception and identity and roles of various other actors is yet to be established. The same can be done only after seizure and scanning of record. The prosecution has submitted that for this purpose custodial interrogation of accused is necessary. Given the fact that petitioner is the head of the office and as such exercises control over the record as also the officials having custody of the record, the submission of prosecution appears to be well founded.
There is also a reasonable apprehension that if petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail, he may influence the subordinate officials of the department who are conversant with the record and facts of the case. Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Sanjay Dhar further observed that that the investigating agency has to be given a free hand to interrogate the petitioner and on the other hand if he is released on bail, his acts might impede the investigation even resulting in tampering with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. Even otherwise, in the cases of corruption at high places, an order of anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless very compelling circumstances are made out for such concession in favour of such accused person and find no such compelling circumstances prevailing in the present case. With these observations Court observed that keeping in view the serious nature of allegations against the accused, his capability to hamper the investigation as also the need of custodial interrogation of accused by investigating agency and rejected the bail application. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
