Rani Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47067 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2024 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rani Kumari W/o Niraj Kumar Jha Resident of Village- Ward No. 7, Lakhnaur, P.S. -Lakhnaur, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anish Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-10-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, dated 21.01.2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21-012024 examination of CTET, 2024 was being held at Safi Muslim High School and the informant received information on mobile phone that in place of Rani Kumari one Poonam is appearing at the examination and the thumb impression was taking twice, but could not matched and accused Poonam admitted that she has
2/4 appeared in place of other person.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the person, who is said to have impersonated this petitioner for appearing in the examination, which was being conducted for C.T.E.T., 2024 is no way connected with this petitioner. The petitioner further submits that there is no concrete or direct evidence to establish that the petitioner committed impersonation or facilitated the same knowingly. Petitioner was not keeping well on the date of examination and the person, who is said to have appeared in the said C.T.E.T., 2024 examination by impersonating the petitioner, was not instructed by her to appear but for the reasons best known to her, she is said to have appeared for ulterior reasons and she has been granted benefit of regular bail by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga on 23.02.2024 vide B.P. No. 105 of 2024.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts that the person, who is said to have appeared in the C.T.E.T., 2024 examination is no way connected with this petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that this petitioner ever instructed the lady to appear in the C.T.E.T., 2024 examination on her behalf and the person
3/4 (Poonam), who is said to have appeared in the said C.T.E.T., 2024 examination has been granted benefit of regular bail by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, let the above named petitioner, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, G.R. No. 197 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner (s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner (s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner (s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
4/4 failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner (s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) pravinkumar/- U T