Hemlata Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through Director General Vigilance Investigation Bureau Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80088 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-697 Year-2016 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== Hemlata Devi, aged about 31 years, Wife of Lalan Kumar Daughter of Ramchandra Das Resident of Village- Sonbarsha, P.S.- Bihpur, DistrictBhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar through Director General Vigilance Investigation Bureau Government of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh For the Vigilance :

Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Kotwali (Adampur) PS Case No. 697 of 2016 dated 13.12.2016 instituted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that she had obtained employment as a School teacher on the basis of forged mark-sheet of Bihar School Examination Board relating to Bihar Elementary Teacher Eligibility Test (BETET), 2011.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was unaware that the mark-sheet was forged and she had appeared

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80088 of 2019 dt.19-12-2019 2/2 in the examination and a certificate was given to her. It was further submitted that she is a lady and upon knowing such fact herself had resigned from service. Learned counsel submitted that similarly situated person Kritika Kumari has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.09.2017 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39002 of 2017.

5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submitted that without the full knowledge of the petitioner such certificate could not have been used to obtain employment and just because she had resigned, does not entitle her to any indulgence as it was not done prior to such forgery coming to light in the investigation done by the Vigilance. It was further submitted that the petitioner had resigned as an admission that the mark-sheet was not genuine.

6. Having considered 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) Ranjeet/Rahul AFR/NAFR U T