[2026:JHHC:19540] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2682 of 2026 ------ Vijay Aind, aged about 51 years, S/o Michael Aind, R/o Lech, Mahugaon, Fatima Toli, P.O. Mahugaon, P.S. Lapung, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand,835224 … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Shwetang Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharti, Advocate ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-03-07-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.04 (A)/2013-R instituted under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer for anticipatory bail as earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.9136 of 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that the co-accused Mantosh Kumar Pandey has been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 passed in A.B.A. No.2230 of 2020 while co-accused namely Krishna Murari Singh, Kanti Devi, Sanjeev Kumar, Rajendra Kumar Baraik, Ashok Kumar Singh and Binod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar all have been given the privileges of anticipatory bail vide a common order dated 19.04.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.3349 of 2022 along with other allied cases. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co- accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and under the said criminal conspiracy, the co-accused persons using their official position dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated the merit list, assessment charts to extend undue benefit to their preferred candidates including the petitioner and under the guidance and influence of Jharkhand Public Service Commission officials, the petitioner was dishonestly and fraudulently declared qualified even though he secured less marks than the candidates who even after securing more marks could not qualify for the post of lecturers and the recruitment test was conducted in complete violation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2002. It is next submitted that the petitioner consequent upon being declared successful in the Jharkhand Eligibility Test, was appointed as a Lecturer of English at R.S.P. College, Jharia, Dhanbad in the year 2008. It is next submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the only allegation against him is that he has received only 89 marks in the 3rd paper of the Jharkhand Eligibility Test Examination whereas the minimum marks required was 100. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material in the record to suggest that 100 marks were the minimum marks required in the 3rd paper of the said Jharkhand Eligibility Test Examination as the advertisement is silent about any minimum marks to be scored in the paper –III of the said examination. It is also submitted that as per the advertisement, the minimum marks for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe were 80. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has not committed any overt criminal act. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 9441 of 2019 vide Judgment dated 18.12.2019, in the case of Jharkhand Public Service Commission Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anr. has held that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has rightly fixed the minimum marks for Paper –III and this being a case of criminal conspiracy, the direct evidence of involvement of the petitioner in any overt criminal act is not a sine qua none and the fact that even though the petitioner did not score the minimum marks, still he has been selected as a Lecturer of English, speaks volumes about his complicity in the criminal conspiracy. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of getting involved in a fraudulent process of recruitment conducted by the co- accused members of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and keeping in view that he is an influential person which is evident from the fact that he succeeded in his fraudulent selection after entering into criminal conspiracy with no less than the high ranking persons like members of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission; there is every chance of his tampering with the evidence, if given the privileges of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the fact that the petitioner has so far succeeded in evading his arrest for a period of over six years even though his earlier anticipatory bail application has already been rejected on merit and thus the petitioner is not a law abiding citizen, is an additional ground for not granting him the privileges of anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, and his prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected on merit, this Court is of the considered view that merely because the co-accused persons have been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner whose prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected on merit. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-03.07.2026-Animesh/