Vinita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53149 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2016 Thana- BELA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== VINITA KUMARI Wife of Sanjay Kumar, D/O - Deo Narayan Pandit Resident of Village - Majhaura, P.S.- Bela, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Vigilance Investigation Bureau Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha For the Vigilance :

Mr. Ajay Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Bela P.S. case No. 22 of 2016 registered under Section 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC.

The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner got herself appointed on the post of teacher and during the enquiry it transpired that petitioner was appointed on the basis of forged and fabricated educational certificate of matriculation pass. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and many other teachers such as, Meera Kumari and Jitendra Nath were appointed on the post of teacher. Meera Kumari and Jitendra Nath were also found to be appointed on the basis of forged certificate for which Parihar P.S. case No. 23 of 2016 but they were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sitamarhi and the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing but it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Vigilance that Meera Kumari was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53149 of 2019(3) dt.30-08-2019 2/2 granted anticipatory bail after taking into consideration that she had passed Intermediate in compartmental examination and she produced the certificate. Similarly, Jitendra Nath produced the certificate of teachers training from S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga and examination of the training college was held in the year 1994-95 in pursuance of the order of the High Court but the college was de-recognized from the year 1998 and, therefore, his certificate was not found forged. The case of the petitioner stands on quite different footing and it was the petitioner who had produced forged educational certificate and got appointment.

Having considered the facts that petitioner produced forged and fabricated educational certificate to get appointment on the post of teacher and no paper was shown by the petitioner on being enquired and she has also been removed from service, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T