Devendra Prasad v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19853 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-969 Year-2016 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== Devendra Prasad, S/o Late Janak Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Yogiya Tola Yarpur, Police Station- Gardanibagh, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate.

Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Sri Shyameshwar Dayal For the High Court :

Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate.

Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner already in custody seeks bail in connection with Official Complaint Case No. 969(C-2) of 2016 registered under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 420, 466, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation in brief is that petitioner created forged document regarding his registration as an Advocate's Clerk and also identified a wrong person as Harendra Sahni, while bail application was filed on his behalf vide Cr. Misc. No. 34749 of 2015. Earlier to that, Cr. Misc. No. 26993 of 2014 was also filed on behalf of Harendra Sahni but in fact Randhir Rai had surrendered in the court in place of Harendra Sahni and also

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19853 of 2018(3) dt.18-04-2018 2/2 criminal antecedent of the petitioner was suppressed. It is submitted that Cr. Misc. No. 26993 of 2014 was filed by Mr. Vinod Kumar, an Advocate and he has been given protection by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34749 of 2015.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court submits that case of the petitioner is on different footing to Vinod Kumar, an Advocate, because the petitioner was not a registered Advocate Clerk and submitting a forged registration number, identified a wrong person Randhir Rai impersonating himself as Harendra Sahni.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in particular, interfering with the administration of justice by making a false identification of an accused and submitting a forged documents of his registration as Advocate's Clerk, the Court is not persuaded to grant bail to the petitioner, accordingly, prayer of bail of the petitioner is presently rejected. Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a year.

(Arun Kumar, J) sujit/- U T