Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41303/2016rejected

Vinay Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2016-11-18Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41303 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -290 Year- 2016 Thana -MOTIHARI TOWN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Vinay Prasad S/o Sheodayal Prasad resident of vill. Madhurapur, Math Gopal, P.S. Turkaulia, Distt. East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahtash Ali Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 290/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The District Program Officer (Literacy) lodged this case in pursuance of the direction given by the Principal Secretary Education Department vide letter no. 918 dated 12.04.2016 that the petitioner and the District Education Officer Ramanandan Prasad who was also Incharge of District Program Officer (Literacy) illegally appointed different persons on non-sanctioned centres and the petitioner in collusion with Ramanand Prasad

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41303 of 2016 (3) dt.18-11-2016 2/2 appointed 113 persons on different additional centres which was not duly sanctioned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is only authorized to place the file before the authority. The authority directed to make appointment, but it appears that there is allegation against the petitioner that he placed file without any noting that those centres are not properly sanctioned and as such illegal appointment was made by Sri Ramanand Prasad in collusion with the petitioner.

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