Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58166/2018dismissed

Mustafa Ansari @ Mustaf Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

2018-12-13Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58166 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2017 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== Mustafa Ansari @ Mustaf Ansari, Son of Ismail Mian, Resident of VillageGanda, P.S.- Charka Pathar, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Sono P. S. Case No. 335 of 2017 instituted under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had got appointment on the post of teacher, on the basis of forged marksheet.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Vigilance enquiry shows that in his marksheet, the aggregate was shown 482 but actually it was 302, however, the detailed break-up of the marks subject-wise has not been shown.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58166 of 2018 dt.13-12-2018 2/2 It was submitted that thus, the enquiry by the Vigilance cannot be said to be proper. Learned counsel also produced copy of order dated 08.10.2018, by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 48324 of 2018, in the case of Rani Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr., who has been granted Anticipatory Bail being an accused in the same case.

5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submitted that upon verification from the record maintained in the T.R. of the issuing authority, it has been found that aggregate marks, which is reflected in the marksheet produced by the petitioner is 482, which is incorrect, as the same is only 302, which clearly proves that the marksheet is forged and fabricated.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR U T