Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging forgery and cheating related to their Social Security Pension applications. The Court rejected the prayer, holding that the petitioners did not deserve anticipatory bail due to the discrepancy in ages.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25527 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -64 Year- 2013 Thana -GAUNAHA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== 1. Chandrakala Devi Wife of Birendra Pandey 2. Islam Mian Son of Late Salim Mian 3. Bunna Khatoon Wife of Islam Mian 4. Chokat Sah Son of Late Laxmi Sah 5. Doma Mian Son of Late Sattar Mian All Resident of Village - Gaunaha, P.S.- Gaunaha, District - West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Mushtaq Alam (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER
2 15-09-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioners is to have applied for pension under the Social Security Pension Yojna but during verification their age was found less than 60 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are poor persons. They had applied for pension under the Social Security Pension Yojna and their age was found correct
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25527 of 2014 (2) dt.15-09-2014
2/2
by the Panchayat Sachib and thereafter the supervising authority and also by the Block Development Authority. But later on it was found that the age mentioned in the applications for pension does not tally with the voter list and, as such, no payment has been made to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners have mentioned their age higher than as mentioned in the voters list only with a view to take undue advantage under the pension scheme and thus, they have tried to cheat the Government.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. Their prayer is rejected.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)
sudip/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of forgery and cheating regarding pension eligibility.
Whether the discrepancy between stated age and voter-list age justified rejection of the anticipatory bail application.
Whether the petitioners' claim of being poor and genuine applicants convinces the court to grant relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandrakala Devi
Islam Mian
Bunna Khatoon
Chokat Sah
Doma Mian
The State of Bihar
Amaresh Kumar Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
