Jay Prakash Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17822 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2018 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== JAY PRAKASH MANJHI, Son of Kishun Manjhi, Resident of Village - Khajuri, P.S- Panapur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra, Presently Posted as Panchayat Teacher at Primary School, Khajuri, P.S.- Panapur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Nath Dubey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2019 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Panapur P.S.Case No. 175 of 2018 registered under Sections 409, 419,420,467,468,471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner got appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher on the basis of forged matriculation marksheet. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of written report of police inspector of Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 15459 of 2014. It is alleged that petitioner made interpolation in the matriculation marksheet after increasing his marks got employment inasmuch as instead of his actual marks of 353, in marksheet 453 marks have been shown. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and at the time of appointment, he had produced

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17822 of 2019(3) dt.18-07-2019 2/2 certificate of matriculation before the competent authority but he is not aware how his marksheet has been changed during the period.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is beneficiary of appointment and has got the public employment on the basis of forged certificate as such he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is beneficiary of the public employment taken on the basis of forged documents, therefore, I am not inclined to grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as such the same is rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T