Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24312/2024bail rejected

Md. Saddam Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-29Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24312 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2024 Thana- DARBHANGA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Md. Saddam Hussain S/O Md. Bakauddin R/O Village- Kuboul, P.SJamalpur, Distt.- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ugranath Mallik, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anish Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Town P.S Case No. 5106055240017 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B of the I.P.C and 8, 10 of the Bihar Conduct Examination Act, 1981 from the court of learned C.J.M. Darbhanga.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 2101-2024 at Rose Public School, Darbhanga center the examination of CTET, 2024 was going on and Biometric of Roll No. 113008846 of Md.Saddam could not match and in the attendance sheet parentage of Md.Saddam was also wrongly written and the person who was apprehended disclose his name as Md. Kamran and admitted that he has appeared at the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24312 of 2024(2) dt.29-04-2024 2/2 examination in place of other and the photograph in Admit card is also differ. It is further alleged that Md. Kamran appeared at the examination in place of Md. Saddam.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the FIR, impugned order it appears that, investigation is in initial stage, prima facie there is a direct involvement of the petitioner in this case considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T