Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39254 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2024 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar son of Mundrika Paswan, Resident of village- Punpun Pakri, PO + PS- Punpun, Dist- Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ramakant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-10-2024 Heard Mr. Ramakant Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jehanabad PS Case No. 97 of 2024, FIR dated 03.02.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 465, 467, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

According to the prosecution case, during the course of inspection of dispatch register, it was found that certain letters were neither sent to the concerned department / addressee nor returned to the office and during the course of inquiry, it transpired that petitioner and co-accused CICL (S) have committed disobedience of the order of JJB, Jehanabad /

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39254 of 2024(4) dt.26-10-2024 2/3 Arwal. It is further alleged that on inspection of dispatch register, a copy of warrant bearing signature of I/c Principal Magistrate-cum-SDJM, Jehanabad has also been found and on enquiry with respect to the said warrant, the concerned Bench clerk has not given any satisfactory reply and when the matter was inquired with the Principal Magistrate, Jehanabad, she replied that the Bench clerk has got prepared the said warrant under her forged signature.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is a 4th grade employee of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jehanabad and the allegation levelled in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He lastly submits that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that petitioner has no role at all in the present occurrence.

5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand on the basis of materials available on record and case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that when the matter was enquired, then it has come to notice that the petitioner along

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39254 of 2024(4) dt.26-10-2024 3/3 with other co-accused persons got prepared the said warrant under the forged signature of Smt. Aditi Kumari, the present SDJM, apart from that, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite letter before the authority concerned. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Jehanabad PS Case No. 97 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad.

7.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T