Pushpa Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14072 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2024 Thana- SALAKHUA District- Saharsa ====================================================== Pushpa Kumari D/O- Arvind Narayan Yadav Resident of Ward No. 14, Bajrang Bali Tola, P.S.- Mansi, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The State of Bihar through Vigilance Department, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., APP For the Vigilance :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate Mr. Paritosh Parimal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025 Heard Mr. Krishna Prabhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the vigilance.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Salakhua P.S. Case No. 206 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 29.08.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner used her fake certificate to get the government job. It is alleged that her provisional certificate which she has submitted was found to be fake after the investigation done by the Swami

2/4 Vivekanand University.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per direction of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15459 of 2014, the present FIR has been instituted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. He further submits that as per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that she has been appointed as Panchayat Teacher in the year 2014. He further submits that during the course of service, the petitioner was required to undergo professional training and accordingly, the petitioner has undergone training and produced the certificate which was found to be forged. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2014 and after due verification, the appointment letter of the petitioner was issued by the concerned authority and petitioner has submitted certificate of professional training from the competent university and she has submitted the same. After filing of the present FIR, the petitioner has been terminated from the service with effect from 09.10.2024.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the Vigilance have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the

3/4 petitioner with ulterior motive has submitted the professional training certificate which she has not completed and she has submitted the forge certificate.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner has clean antecedent and persuant to the present FIR, she has been terminated from the post in question, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Saharsa in connection with Salakhua P.S. Case No. 206 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:- i.

Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii.

4/4 for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) priyanka/- U T