Sakaldeo Gond @ Sakaldeo Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40346 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2018 Thana- RASULPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Sakaldeo Gond @ Sakaldeo Sah Son of Bijul Sah Resident of Village- Lakad Chapra, P.S.- Rasulpur, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra, APP.

For the Vigilance Department : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as learned counsel for the Vigilance Department. The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Rasulpur P.S. Case No. 141 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that the Vigilance Department has to find out the name of the persons who are instrumental in manufacturing the forged documents. He further submits that he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40346 of 2021(3) dt.18-04-2022 2/2 has to find out the details of the forgery committed by the petitioner and others who are not named in the F.I.R. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Petitioner is the beneficiary of the forged documents. Petitioner has been appointed as Panchayat Teacher by the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Sachiv and their role is also doubtful in this case.

Mr. Arvind Kumar say that they are looking at the role of the Panchayat Sachiv and the Mukhiya concerned in this case and submits that the Vigilance Department is taking all steps for proper investigation in this case.

In view of the above, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is accordingly, dismissed. The Vigilance Department is free to take all steps as necessary and permitted in law for proper investigation of the case to find out the truth.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) siddharthkr/- U