TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1997. 3. A summary of the facts necessary for disposal of these appeals is the following: First respondent Bimal Krishna Kundu and his son Hrishakesh Kundu (who is second respondent) were owners of a printing press run by M/s. Eureka Printers Pvt. Ltd. They were engaged by the Public Service Commission of the State of Andhra Pradesh (PSC. for short) for printing question papers set for the examination conducted by the P.S.C. In the year 1993, there was leakage of question papers and it was revealed then that the printers were also responsible for such leakage. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by order dated 6.1.1994 black listed the respondents. However, such black listing did not put a stoppage to leaking of question papers even in lat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is no doubt true that leakage of question papers of Intermediate examination is a heinous and unpardonable crime. It may be seen that some persons tried to make business in lakhs and crores of rupees by selling these papers without caring for the consequences. Obviously the career of millions of students who have taken the Intermediate examination can be said to have been adversely affected. 5. After perusing the materials on record learned single judge persuaded himself to grant anticipatory bail, mainly for the following reasoning: That being so, what are the offences that can be said to have been made out is the question for consideration. It is fairly stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the offences made out agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle judge seems to have telescoped considerations contemplated in Section 437 into the amplitude of the discretion envisaged in Section 438 of the Code. 8. A three judge bench of this Court has stated in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1985CriLJ1175 . Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under S. 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. 9. Similar observations have been made by us in a recent judgment in State rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma 1997CriLJ4414 . Cons....