Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28018/2016rejected

Manoj Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-09-23Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28018 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2016 Thana -SAMASTIPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Manoj Kumar, Son of Gajendra Prasad Sah Resident of Village- Sahpur Undi, Police Station- Patori, District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Police Inspector, Vigilance Investigation Beuro, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Ranjeet Kumar, Adv. For the Vigilance : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 23-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 57/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Enquiry was held with regard to appointment of teachers on fake certificates in pursuance of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15459/2014. The petitioner Manoj Kumar was appointed by the Samastipur District Board Appointment Unit as a Secondary School Teacher in the year 2007 and he was posted at High School Rasalpur Block-Patori District - Samastipur. The petitioner got appointment after submitting D.P.Ed. Certificate, but it is found

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28018 of 2016 (4) dt.23-09-2016 2/2 that the mark-sheet of D.P.Ed submitted by the petitioner is forged one. Petitioner failed in examination, but he made interpolation in the mark-sheet showing that the petitioner got 817 marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not yet been terminated from service. He did not receive any show-cause, but from perusal of F.I.R. it appears that petitioner obtained the service on the basis of forged mark-sheet of D.P.Ed examination.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T