Patna High Court - Orders
Dharmendra Kumar Jha vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 11 January, 2018
Author: Prabhat Kumar Jha
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Jha
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.63631 of 2017 (2) dt.11-01-2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.63631 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -88 Year- 2017 Thana -BHAGWANPUR District- BEGUSARAI
======================================================
1. Dharmendra Kumar Jha, Son of Ram Udgar Jha, resident of Village:
Sohilbara, P.S.: Mansoor Chak, District- Begusarai.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Police Inspector Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Indra Kumar Singh
Mr. Rabindra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR
JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-01-2018Heard both sides.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.88 of 2017 registered under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The gist of the allegation that the petitioner got appointment on the basis of a forged matriculation marksheet. On verification, it was found that the petitioner having Roll Code 6328 Roll No.648 got 452 marks in matriculation examination from B.S.E.B. but the petitioner submitted forged marksheet showing Roll Code 6328 Roll No.648 and marks obtained by him is 568 and petitioner was shown to have passed the matriculation examination in the 1st division on the basis of which petitioner was Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.63631 of 2017 (2) dt.11-01-2018 2 appointed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been terminated from the service. The petitioner is a trained teacher but from perusal of the F.I.R., which was lodged after thorough enquiry, it was found that the petitioner submitted false marksheet of matriculation examination. In fact, he got 452 marks in the matriculation examination but the petitioner submitted the marksheet showing that he got 568 marks and on such, he was appointed.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/-
U T