Sushil Kumar Sahani v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.45694 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -230 Year- 2016 Thana -SAKRA District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Sushil Kumar Sahani Son of Sri Suresh Sahni resident of Village- Nunfara, P.S.- Piyar, Dist- Muzaffarpur present posted as Sakra Prakhand Teacher Middle School Bagahi, Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-11-2016 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sakra P.S. Case No. 230 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that during course of enquiry in pursuance of the order of this Court, it transpired that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of forge and fake certificate said to have been issued by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. The certificate of the petitioner bearing Code-2202, No. 536 of 2002 shows that the petitioner got 507 marks. When the certificate was sent for verification the Deputy Controller of Examination disclosed that the mark sheet was fake and the same was not issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45694 of 2016 (2) dt.25-11-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2002, the petitioner was minor and he did not play any role in obtaining certificate but, when the petitioner became major he filled up his form for appointment of teachers in which the petitioner annexed the fake and forged certificate of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna and got appointment as Prakhand Teacher. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T