CRL OP/34649/2019 of JONATHAN DANIEL Vs STATE REP.BY ITS on 30 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.34649 of 2019

JONATHAN DANIEL [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

Vs

STATE REP.BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ]

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/ACB, CHENNAI.

CRIME NO.RC MA 1 2019 A 0017.

For Petitioner : M/S.T.SAI KRISHNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.SRINIVASAN SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 120 (B)r/w 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No. RC MA 1 2019 A0017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatorybail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner wasappointed as a regular professor on 10.11.2005. He had only 7years teaching experience as against the mandatory requirement of8 years as per the rules of Dental Council of India. Aftercompletion of the post graduation and in between his teachingexperience, the petitioner had between 04.03.2000 to 03.03.2002,worked as Assistant Registrar cum Research Officer at Amiri DentalCentre, therefore the petitioner had intentionally suppressed thisfactor and had managed to obtain employment as Professor with theconnivance of the officials. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatthe petitioner initially recruitment as Assistant Professor witheffect from 29.06.2002 and he had made an application only fromKuwait and the Selection Committee proceedings would clearlyindicate that the petitioner had expressly stated about hisworking at Kuwait. He further submitted that such selection tohttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the post of Professor is concerned, the statement in the FIR, that the Dental Council Rules require 8 years of mandatory experienceis factually incorrect and as per the Dental Council Rules whichwere in force during the year 2005, it was only five years ofexperience which was mandatory. The Mahatma Gandhi Dental Collegeand Hospital had prescribed only 8 years of experience in teachingfield. He further submitted that when the petitioner joined theInstitute in the year 2002 as Assistant Professor, there was nopost graduation. However in the year 2004, permission was grantedfor post graduation by the State Government and the course wasstarted in the year 2006. The petitioner was initially appointedon Adhoc basis on 16.02.2005 as Professor. Thereafter the saidpost was advertised and after verification of records, thepetitioner called for interview. Thereafter the petitioner wasappointed as Professor and his services were regularized since themandatory requirement of 5 years as prescribed by the DentalCouncil and also had 9 years of total experience which includedtwo years of experience in Kuwait. The petitioner was otherwisefound suitable, the petitioner was appointed as Professor. Hefurther submitted that one of the Professor namely S.P.K.Kennedywas promoted belatedly after the petitioner in the year 2007. Hewanted to score a march over this petitioner in matters of furtherpromotion and administrative posts. This Professor also havehappened to be a son of powerful Political personality using hispolitical clout at each stage managed to exert undue pressure onthe respondent to register the present case only to scuttle thefurther promotional opportunities and administrative positions andhe had also given the very same complaint to Vigilance, CB CID,Puducherry and all authorities. Therefore, he prays to grantanticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor had filed counterbefore this Court submit that the source information received thatMr. M. Jonathan Daniel, Associate Dean, Mahatma Gandhi PostGraduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Puducherry was promoted tothe post of Adhoc Professor in the said institution on 16.02.2005with teaching experience of 6 years and 3 months after postgraduation and promoted as regular Professor on 10.11.2005 with 7years teaching experience against the mandatory requirement rulesof Dental Council of India that 8 years teaching experience in thesubject/speciality after post graduation. During the period from04.03.2000 to 03.03.2002, the petitioner had worked as AssistantRegistrar-cum Research officer at Amiri Dental Centre at Kuwaitwhich could not be counted as teaching experience for the purposeof promotion as Professor and thus by giving false particulars andobtaining the post. After registration of the case, the searchwas conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner andsubstantial incriminating documents were seized. The presence ofthe petitioner is required for further investigation based on theseized documents and other materials. He further submits thatthe investigation is in the inception stage and it is required tofind out the modus operandi of the petitioner and others, thecriminality involved, the mensrea, role of other accused etc to beprobed in detail. The petitioner being a influential person ifhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/anticipatory bail is granted there is every possibility to tamper with evidence which is collected by the respondent. Therefore heprays for dismissal of the petition.

5. In view of the rival submissions made by the respondentand on perusal of the material, the crux of the issue is thatwhether the petitioner had mandatory experience before he wasappointed as Professor. During the year 2005, according to thepetitioner it was only 5 years as per the Dental Council Rules andfurther the petitioner had applied from Kuwait where he wasworking in the year 2002 and there apart from carrying onprofession on the medical side there, he was teaching and thisfactor was not informed to the Selection Committee. It is onlynow interpretation of the requisite mandatory period iscalculated. The petitioner being a Professor of Mahatma GandhiInstitute of Dental Sciences, Puducherry for the past 15 years andfor the past one year and 2 months he had been cooperating withthe investigation whenever he was examined and submittingdocuments.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to thepetitioner with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released onanticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance,within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of acopy of this order, before the learned Special Judge for CBICases, Puducherry, on condition that the petitioner shall executea bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) withtwo sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of therespondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest orto the satisfaction of the said Special Judge, on furthercondition that:

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix theirphotographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and theSpecial Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passBook to ensure their identity.

[b] if the petitioner fail to surrender before the said Courtwithin a period of fifteen days, this order shall standautomatically cancelled.

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent at10.30 a.m every Saturday, for the period of four weeks andthereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[d] The petitioner can leave India only by filing his date ofDeparture, the Date of Arrival, place of stay, his contact numberthere to the concerned Court by way of Memo and the same to beintimated to the respondent police.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial; [f] the petitioner shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial; [g] on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditionshave been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by thelearned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW5560]; and; [h] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can beregistered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 30/12/2019

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carriedinto execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO

1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, PUDUCHERRY

2 THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,FOR CBI CASES, PUDUCHERRY.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/ACB, CHENNAI.

+1CC to M/S.T.SAI KRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessarycharges SR NO.106904

Date :30/12/2019

MK:10/01/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/