Veena Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34468 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2019 Thana- DHORAIYA District- Banka ====================================================== Veena Devi W/O Shyamanand Singh Resident of Village- Beli Sri pather, P.S.- Dhoraiya, Distt-Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2025 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Vigilance.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 54 of 2019, F.I.R. dated 16.03.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons in collusion got appointment as teachers in Government Schools under Banka district on the basis of forged documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that pursuant

2/4 to the direction passed in CWJC No. 15459 of 2014 (PIL), the Vigilance Investigation Bureau has filed number of cases including the present one against the petitioner and other similarly situated accused persons including the newly appointed teachers. He further submits that the petitioner is exPramukh of the Panchayat Niyojan Samiti, Dhoraiya, DistrictBanka. As per allegation in the F.I.R the petitioner without examining the certificates of the candidates have recommended the names of the selected candidates for appointment to the post of teacher. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.

R in fact, the petitioner has no authority to examine the certificates of the candidate and she has no role at all in the present occurrence and she has been made accused in the present case after delay of four years of so called occurrence (appointment). He further submits that the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Chandana Devi who was Ex-Mukhiya of the concerned Panchayat has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 53806 of 2024.

5. The learned counsel for the Vigilance has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and

3/4 submits that the petitioner has to verify the certificate of the candidates and apart from that she has role to send the certificate of the selected candidates for verification from the competent authority/university.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner has clean antecedent and the similarly situated co-accused person has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 54 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

4/4 ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

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