Harshvardhan Kumar @Chhotu @ Harshvardhan @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29233 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -94 Year- 2017 Thana -KOTWALI District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Harshvardhan Kumar @chhotu @ Harshvardhan @ Chhotu Son of Sri Surendra Prasad Resident of Navin Colony, Banu Chhapar Bettia , P.S. - Muffasil, District East Champaran, Bihar at Present, Residing at Kunti Palance, Road No. 4, Patel Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kr. Singh : Tulika Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ataur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 01-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kotwali PS case no. 94 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 475, 120B of Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that one Gyan Prakash was running an institute wherein various courses were being offered and upon completion of the same, certificates were granted to the students. The further allegation of the informant is that he had enrolled for the course of Bachelor of Fine Arts in the institute of the said Gyan Prakash and after completion of the same, he was granted a certificate which turned out to be a forged one. It is further stated that when he went to the said Gyan Prakash

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29233 of 2017 (2) dt.01-07-2017 2/2 for refund of the money on account of the said certificate turning out to be a forged one, he refused to the return the money and at this juncture, his employees including the petitioner stated that many students have completed the course and taken the degrees. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of FIR depicts that the petitioner was merely an employee of the said Gyan Prakash who is running the institute and the allegation of either taking money for the B.F.A. course or giving a forged degree/ certificate to the informant has not been leveled against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in custody since 01.03.2017.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, the fact that petitioner is only a mere worker and not the owner of the said institute, I deem it fit and appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Patna in connection with Kotwali PS case no. 94 of 2017. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J.)