Ranjit Kumar And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39004 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2017 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna ======================================================
1. Ranjit Kumar son of Vino Ram
2. Manoj Kumar son of Vino Ram Both resident of Mohalla Muchan Sah Tola Ward no. 8, Saharsa, P.S.Saharsa, Dist. Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited Vidhyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kotwali P.S. case no. 122 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 416, 417, 418, 419, 467, 471, 474,420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
In the written report it is alleged that petitioner no.1, namely Ranjit Kumar appeared in the office of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited for joining to the post of Assistant Operator against Employment Notice No. 6 of 2016 by fraudulently adding his name at Serial no. 45 which find mentioned in page 15 (part of the F.I.R.). The aforesaid
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39004 of 2018(2) dt.05-07-2018 2/3 information given by petitioner no.1 was compared with the record of office and notice published on website and it was found fabricated. It is further alleged that name of this petitioner has been fraudulently added at Sl. No.45 on the website and the same was not available in original information. The names of 44 candidates kept in the pending list for appointment were published on the website. They were given opportunity to submit their documents. In such circumstances this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner no.1, namely, Ranjit Kumar. Prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1 is rejected.
Allegation against petitioner no.2, namely, Manoj Kumar is that he accompanied petitioner no.1 when he went for joining in the office. Besides this, there is no other allegation of overt act against petitioner no.2.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner no.2 for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner no.2, named above, within six weeks from today in connection with Kotwali P.S. case no. 122 of 2017, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39004 of 2018(2) dt.05-07-2018 3/3 CJM Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P. C. with further conditions:(1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioner and (3) if petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (Sanjay Priya, J) shyambihari/- U T