Sarita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42160 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2021 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== SARITA KUMARI Daughter of Late Banarasi Singh, Wife of Chandradeo Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Gangajal, Baraka, Bagicha, P.S.- Sonepur in the district of Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Braj Nandan Kumar Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 420, 457, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Sonpur P.S.Case No. 46 of 2021.

As per allegation, the petitioner became successful in securing a job of government teacher by producing forged educational certificate. Her actual date of birth is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42160 of 2021(5) dt.12-07-2022 2/2 13.01.1967, but in the certificate of Madhyama it was shown as 13.01.1978. Her certificate was verified from Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna and it was found to be a forged certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent. Her certificate is not forged, but genuine one. Up till now, no department proceeding has initiated against her. The FIR itself shows that the certificate of the petitioner was verified by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and the authority who issued the certificate has stated that it was forged one.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to privilege of anticipatory bail. Her prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T