Punam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44298 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2018 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Punam Kumari D/o Upendra Singh Resident of Village - Chhariyari, P.S.- Makhdumpur, Dist.- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta O.P.) P.S. Case No.430 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner as per the written report submitted by Inspector, Vigilance, alleging therein that in pursuance of Vigilance Inquiry No.B.S.-80/2015 to detect illegal and fake appointments of contract Panchayat Teacher, pursuant to direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.15459 of 2014, it has been detected that selected candidate, that is, the petitioner submitted marks sheet certificate and upon verification of the same, has been found to be fake.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44298 of 2019(2) dt.18-07-2019 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and this Hon'ble Court in the writ application had given opportunity to the person to resign, if the certificate submitted by him / her was fake. The wrong committed by the petitioner is that the petitioner did not resign at that point of time and in the Vigilance inquiry, certificate has been found to be fake. Accordingly, submission is that petitioner, being a lady, may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is beneficiary of appointment on the basis of fake certificate and despite having been given one opportunity by the Court, she did not resign and waited the investigation to be held by the Vigilance Department in which the certificate is found to be fake. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.