Shyam Kishore Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81804 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-563 Year-2023 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Shyam Kishore Chauhan S/O Ramnath Chauhan Resident of village - Gowar Dharmpur, P.ONadanwa Tola, P.S - Barh District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Lal Mohammad,Police Inspector-cum- Enquiry Officer, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna Division Patna , Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the Vigilance :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for Vigilance.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application, however, in the present case certain facts need to be recorded before such permission is granted.

3. The F.I.R had been lodged since the petitioner had taken appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher on the basis of forged mark-sheets/certificates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had initially pressed the application on the basis of facts asserting that there was no illegality in his appointment and the same was based on genuine documents. Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit had also been filed in the present case wherein statements had been made that the said mark-sheets/certificates of the petitioner are genuine and correct and in order to support of the same, Annexure-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81804 of 2024(7) dt.22-07-2025 2/2 P/4 and P/5 had been annexed.

5. In response to the same, learned counsel for the Vigilance also filed a second supplementary counter affidavit and it was pointed out by way of Annexure-F that the documents which have been brought on record by the petitioner by way of his supplementary affidavit are also fake and they have not been issued by the Office of the undersigned.

6. This Court takes a serious view of the matter as the petitioner who was already facing an allegation of getting an appointment on the basis of fake and forged marksheet/certificates, instead of resigning from the post during amnesty period, he has shown the audacity to again file some fake and forged documents by way of affidavit before this Court.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the investigating agency is directed to conduct inquiry into the matter and take steps as would be required in accordance with law.

8. However, this application is permitted to be withdrawn and the present application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid direction.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T