Renuka Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through The Additional Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63214 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2017 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RENUKA DEVI W/o Birendra Chaudhary R/o Village- Ruphari, P.O.- Kapurpakari, P.S.- Shikarganj, Sub- Division- Sikaraha, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Additional Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, 6, Circular Road, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jagnnath Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-09-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered in connection with Vigilance P.S.Case No. 85 of 2017.

As per allegation, the petitioner secured second position in merit-list of Anganbari Sevika. The allegation is that after preparation of merit-list, 12 points were added in her score after adding her forged handicapped certificate and forged certificate of graduation.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63214 of 2021(3) dt.20-09-2022 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was rejected in Cr.Misc. No. 32247 of 2020, vide order dated 29.07.2021, but she is renewing her prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the CDPO has been granted anticipatory bail. He has submitted further that it was the CDPO, who had annexed the certificates of the petitioner in her form.

There is allegation that the petitioner submitted forged certificates. Her anticipatory bail petition has earlier been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court. In my view, there is no ground for reconsideration of the matter. The prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T