Patna High Court
Salta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 30 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3253 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-316 Year-2016 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali
======================================================
Salta Kumari, aged about 46 years, Female, Wife of Sankar Jai Kishan,
Resident of Village - Makshudpur PS - Fatuha, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-07-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of
motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on
26.07.2021, which was allowed.
3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Goraul PS Case No. 316 of 2016 dated 22.12.2016, instituted
under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 409/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
5. The allegation against the petitioner and two others is
that appointment on the post of ANM(R) was on the basis of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3253 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021
forged documents and that the salary drawn by her for the period
she had worked was required to be returned, which despite notice,
she had not done.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she
has already left her job and has taken money only for the period
she had worked. It was submitted that the petitioner was never
noticed with regard to any recovery to be made from her and
straightaway an FIR has been lodged. It was further submitted that
at the time of appointment in the year 2008, her documents had
been sent for verification and no objection was raised by any
person. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no other
criminal antecedent and that similarly situated co-accused Vibha
Kumari has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench
by order dated 13.07.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1772 of 2021.
7. Learned APP submitted that the allegation is very
serious. An employment under the State i.e., public employment,
has been usurped by the petitioner on the basis of forged
documents and it continued for six years and only when the fraud
emerged, the petitioner had chosen to leave the job. It was
submitted that the allegation in the FIR is not only for recovery of
money but also for taking action for having committed such fraud
on the system. It was submitted that all the accused persons,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3253 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021
including the petitioner has been ordered by office order to return
the money but they did not do so and, this was sufficient by way
of a show cause where they could have taken a ground and
explained their position, but they have chosen not to do so and
most importantly, for lodging of a criminal case where the
allegation is that the employment itself is based on forged
documents, and once when it has been confirmed by the issuing
agency itself, there is no requirement in law for issuance of show
cause as the trial itself is sufficient to safeguard the bona fide
interest of any accused when he or she shall have full opportunity
to adduce evidence to prove their innocence. As far as the order
of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vibha Kumar (supra), it
was submitted that the Court had only noticed the submission that
the allegation was that she had received salary which she had not
returned whereas the allegation is primarily that she had obtained
the job based on forged documents, which clearly is a criminal
offence.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
finds substance in the contention of learned APP. The allegation
being specific that the job of the petitioner was obtained on the
basis of forged documents which had been verified by the issuing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3253 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021
agency, coupled with the fact that there is no pleading in the
petition that the petitioner had obtained such employment on the
basis of genuine documents, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-
arrest bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
