Saurabh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30625 of 2017 (3) dt.02-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30625 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -71 Year- 2017 Thana -JAHANABAD District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Saurabh Kumar Son of Narayan @ Ram Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village- Miragpur, P.S.- Bajirganj, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 71 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged in the written report that during examination of BSSC, one of the examinees Anita Kumari was found with handwritten answer papers of 111 questions and on interrogation, she divulged that the alleged answer paper has been made available to her by co-accused Vinay Kumar one another examinee namely Shashi Kant was also caught with written answer on plain paper containing 24 pages. During investigation, it has come that Vinay Kumar has disclosed that he has received answer from Ramesh Kumar. The police thereafter, arrested Ramesh Kumar and he disclosed before the police that this petitioner had sent the answer of question papers of BSSC

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30625 of 2017 (3) dt.02-08-2017 Examination through Whatsapp message and thereafter, he used to forward the same to co-accused Vinay Kumar who had assured to pay Rs. 25,000/- In such circumstances, it appears that there is a chain of involvement of accused persons, as described in the written report. As such, this court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the court below and disposed off on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T