Shabnam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar Through Deputy Superitendent Of Police Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30685 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-508 Year-2018 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Shabnam Kumari D/o- Bhupendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Kataiya Goti, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna (DY. S.P. Vigilance, V.J.B., Patna) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Naresh Kumar Mehta For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anjani Kumar (L.O.Inc.Vigi.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Supaul P.S. Case No.508 of 2018 registered under Sections 198, 420 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. In pursuance of order passed by this court in CWJC No.15459 of 2014, Vigilance was ordered to look into the illegality in appointment of panchayat teachers and in pursuance of order, investigation was made and it transpired that during the period from 2003 to 2012 the petitioner was appointed on the post of panchayat teacher on the basis of forged certificate. The petitioner obtained 417 marks but the certificate produced by the petitioner showed that she got 622 marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30685 of 2019(2) dt.09-05-2019 2/2 other accused persons have been granted bail but I find that it was the petitioner, who submitted forged and fabricated certificate showing that the petitioner got 622 mark whereas petitioner had got only 417 marks. The petitioner fraudulently obtained her appointment on the post of panchayat teacher on the basis of such forged and fake certificate. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T