Anju Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30892 of 2017 Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -129 Year- 2016 Thana -JAHANABAD District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Anju Chaudhary W/o Dr. Bipul Kumar, Resident of Village- Postmortem Road, Harish Chandra Talab, P.S.- Nawada, District- Nawada, at present Prakhand Shiksha Padhadhikari, Silaw, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amitabh Sohan, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-07-2017 Heard.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Jehanabad P.S.Case No.129 of 2016 pending in the Court of CJM, Jehanabad registered for an offence under Sections 409 and 120B of the IPC.
3. The informant of this case is the Block Education Officer. He lodged an information with SHO of Jehanabad P.S. alleging inter-alia that in the light of order of this Hon'ble Court, the Educational/Training Certificate submitted by applicants at the time of employment by Block/Panchayat teachers were duly examined by the vigilance department. The informant in spite of his best effort could not trace the folder of 10 teachers. The informant contacted former Block Education Officer, Mr. Shekhar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30892 of 2017 (2) dt.10-07-2017 2/2 from whom, he had taken charge to provide him the missing folder of the teachers. The said Mr. Shekhar informed the informant that the said teachers were appointed by Smt. Anju Choudhary (petitioner) who was then posted as Block Education Officer. She had not handed over those folders. She had given a written application agreeing to hand over the charge of rest papers in the next month. She did not hand over those papers and was transferred. The informant and his predecessors have stated that this petitioner did not hand over the folders relating to all the ten teachers in spite of repeated request. Whenever her successors demanded all those papers, the petitioner deferred the matter and agreed to provide the same in coming month. The report of successors is part of FIR.
4. Considering the allegation of making the relevant paper traceless relating to appointment made by her, I am not inclined to grant her anticipatory bail. The prayer of anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./- U T