Breaking News
Nagaland Post Logo
You are here:  Skip Navigation LinksHome » Show story
High Court sets aside bail
Correspondent Kohima , Jun 14 (NPN):
Published on 15 Jun. 2009 12:49 AM IST
Print  Text Size

On a petition filed by the Advocate General, Government of Nagaland, the Gauhati High Court Kohima bench, on June 12, has set aside the anticipatory bail granted to one of the accused, then serving as under secretary of the education department during the period 2007-09 when the bogus and illegal appointments scam took place in the department of school education(DSE). What was more, it was learnt that the bogus appointments during the above mentioned period(2007-09), were shown as having been made against posts created during 1989,1991 and 1998. According to a report, the High Court has ordered that the hearing for a fresh pre-arrest bail petition by the accused officer, be heard at the lower court (Mokokchung) on June 18 and carried out as per the requirement of the law. The High Court has ordered that the accused shall be allowed to go on bail with a surety of Rs.5000 and the petition disposed off in the lower court. According to the report, the state Vigilance Commission probing the case, had obtained warrant of arrest against the officer as part of investigation into the bogus appointment scam. Interestingly, the warrant of arrest, supposed to have been confidential somehow was leaked and the officer on knowing about it, rushed to the lower court and obtained pre-arrest bail on May 27. The bail granted to the accused had prevented the SIT from taking custody of the accused for interrogation, it was stated. Furthermore, in the petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail, the state government had pointed out that the lower court had granted ‘pre-arrest bail’(anticipatory bail) to the accused officer without serving any notice and without hearing the prosecution side, as mandated as per the law under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. The learned Judge of the High Court had pointed out that the lower court, while passing the pre-arrest order, had not considered whether there was any requirement for custodial interrogation of the accused by the prosecuting agency. Besides the above point, the Judge also noted that the lower court had not examined if there was non availability of incriminating materials against the accused nor did the lower court call for the case diary before granting pre-arrest bail to the accused. It was also reported that the accused had also applied for bail with the Vigilance Commission but was turned down on June 2. It may be recalled that the state government had constituted the SIT under the Vigilance Commission and on learning of a greater magnitude of the scam, later enlarged the scope to cover appointments made since 2002 in general and any other specific doubtful cases of appointments prior to 2002.

Comments:(0) Login or Register to post your Comment
(Available for registered users only)
More News