Sudhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79214 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2022 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Sudhir Kumar Son of Ramnath Prasad Resident of SBI Dhaka, P.S. - Dhaka, District - East Champaran 2.
Rita Kumari Daughter of Kamal Pd. @ Kamal Prasad Resident of SBI Dhaka, P.S. - Dhaka, District - East Champaran 3.
Sanjeet Yadav Son of Baiju Pd. Yadav @ Baiju Prasad Yadav Resident of Katkuiya, P.S. - Chiraiya, District - East Champaran 4.
Md. Faiyaz Ansari Son of Hakim Ansari Resident of Maliya Tola, P.S. - Chiraiya, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-04-2025 Heard Mr. Suran Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 244 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 01.10.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, it is alleged in Letter No. 885 dated 06.04.2022 issued by the D.E.O., it is mentioned that during the verification of CTET/BTET
2/4 certificates of selected candidates (petitioners) have been found to be forged and fabricated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are having clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. As per the allegation in the F.I.R., the petitioners have submitted forged certificates during the counseling of the documents of the petitioners and accordingly, the District Education Officer has lodged the F.I.R. against these petitioners. He further submits that in fact, the petitioners have submitted original documents with regard to the CTET/BTET examination and without seeking any exaplanation from the petitioner, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the authority concerned and the petitioners have never submitted any forged documents.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts that the petitioner are having clean antecedent and the authority without verifying the documents from the authority concerned instituted the present case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
3/4 bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 244 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U T