Kamla Kant @ Kamla Kant Raman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42427 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -386 Year- 2016 Thana -MOTIHARI TOWN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Kamla Kant @ Kamla Kant Raman Son of Late Shukhdeo Raman Resident of village - Parsauni Devajit, P.S. Mehsi, District - East Champaran, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 420, 258, 259, 260, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation is that informant was asked by petitioner along with co-accused, an advocate clerk, to put his signature and seal on stamp and franking judicial stamp and for this he will be paid reasonable amount. On finding those documents to be forged informant deposited the same in the D.B.A. and those were also found forged by D.B.A.
It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he has got no criminal antecedent. No allegation of tampering of witnesses is alleged against petitioner. Petitioner has been made accused due to mistake of fact. There is no substantive evidence to suggest his implication in the present case. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. There is specific allegation against him for
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42427 of 2016 (3) dt.13-12-2016 2/2 obtaining signature and seal, on the stamp and franking judicial stamp relating to forged document. For this, informant was induced that he will be paid reasonably. When the said document was verified then it was found that the stamp and seal on the advocate welfare stamp was also forged. The anticipatory bail of other co-accused has been rejected vide Cr. Misc. no. 39727 of 2016.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, same is rejected. (Sudhir Singh, J) sudip/- U T