Rajeev Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42495 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2022 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== Rajeev Ranjan, Son Of Sanjay Singh Resident Of Village, P.O And P.S- Sono, Dist- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The S.P Vigilance, Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the allegation is of seeking appointment as Panchayat Teacher based on forged and fabricated mark-sheet of Intermediate.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that no show-cause was issued by the Vigilance prior to instituting the F.I.R. seeking an explanation.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42495 of 2022(2) dt.05-09-2022 2/2 The learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and submits that the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No.15459 of 2014 had given amnesty to those teachers, who were appointed based on forged and fabricated mark-sheet to resign within a time frame, but still the petitioner continued with his appointment and kept on drawing salary which in reality was a burden on the public exchequers. It is next submitted that prior to institution of an F.I.R., show-cause is not required, nor the petitioner in his anticipatory bail application has taken any defence.

Considering the submission made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T