Pramila Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35507 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2019 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== PRAMILA KUMARI W/o Lal Babu Kunwar, D/o Baij Nath Rai R/o VillagePurkhas- Dukh Haran Tola, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Ajay Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-10-2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Gopalpur P.S.Case No.28 of 2019.

This case was registered on the basis of the order of this Court passed in CWJC No.15459 of 2014. A per the prosecution case, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Teacher after concealing her date of birth. The report of the Controller of the Examination, Bihar Sanskrit Education Board, Patna, reveals the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.01.1970, whereas as per the matric certificate her date of birth is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35507 of 2019(9) dt.21-10-2021 2/2 05.11.1972. The report from the Controller of Examination was obtained to ascertain the real fact.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the real date of birth of the petitioner is 05.11.1972, as per her metric certificate and school leaving certificate. The date of birth of the petitioner is under dispute. The allegation against her is that she has got appointed after concealing her real date of birth. The Examination Controller had made a detailed inquiry in this respect and found that the date of birth of the petitioner was 05.01.1970. The investigation is still going on, so at this juncture, this Court does not think it proper to consider this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner may renew her prayer for bail after conclusion of the investigation.

It is made clear that the order of this Court will not affect the case of the petitioner, if she seeks regular bail in the court below on merit.

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