Sushil Kumar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25499 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-505 Year-2019 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

SUSHIL KUMAR SAHNI Son of Rajendra Sahni Resident of VillageSonbehat, P.S.-Biraul, District-Darbhanga. 2.

Bijay Kumar Sahni S/o Asharfi Sahni Resident of Village-Laxmanpur, P.S.- Bahera, District-Darbhanga.

3.

Ramchandra Mahto S/o Rameshwar Mahto Resident of Village-Laxmanpur, P.S.-Bahera, District-Darbhanga.

4.

Rupa Kumari D/o Ramchandra Chaupal, W/o Amarnath Kumar Resident of Village-Khon Tol (Bandevi Nagaar), Supaul Bazar, P.S-Biraul, DistrictDarbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.M.P. Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 505 of 2019, registered under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benipur.

The accusation is that while the petitioners appeared in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in the year 2011, but they did not obtain the required number for passing the examination,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25499 of 2020(3) dt.12-01-2021 2/2 but, petitioners, on manipulation, submitted marks sheet of Teacher Eligibility Test for appointment of block teacher. Later on, on verification the marks sheet of Teacher Eligibility Test filed by the petitioners found forged.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that after proper verification of certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test, the petitioners had been appointed as Block Teacher.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T