Rajnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50099 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -737 Year- 2015 Thana -KATIHAR District- KATIHAR ====================================================== Rajnish Kumar Son of Vinod Ram, resident of Village Patiyawan, Police Station Sakurabad, District Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Katihar Nagar (Sahayak) P.S. case No.737 of 2015 registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable by the recruitment Board of Katihar and during inquiry it came to know that the petitioner along with co-accused were succeeded in examination after placing another person on their behalf.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50099 of 2016 (2) dt.23-11-2016 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has been made accused due to mistake of fact. There is no substantive evidence to suggestion his implication in the present case. The other co-accused have been granted regular bail by the court below vide B.P. No.1245 of 2015 and B.P. No.1030 of 2016.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and by way of fraud he had tried to obtain the appointment for the post of Constable in police service. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Anyhow if the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks from today, his case shall be considered in the light of the order passed in the B.P. No.1245 of 2015 and B.P. No.1030 of 2016. If possible, the same may be disposed of on the same day.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T