This judgment rejects an application for anticipatory bail filed by Kamal Kumar in a case involving examination impersonation under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, holding that entitlement to release is negated by evidence showing participation via another person.
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.5966 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-301 Year-2020 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna
======================================================
KAMAL KUMAR SON OFSRI RABINDRA CHOUDHARY VILLAGECHROUN, P.S. MUFFASIL MUNGER, DISTRICT- MUNGER.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Krishan Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Rupaspur Police Station Case No. 301 of 2020, disclosing offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per FIR, co-accused, Deepak Kumar was appearing in examination conducted by Bihar School Examination Board impersonating the present petitioner. The Invigilator found that the photograph of Kamal Kumar, the present petitioner, did not tally with the person who was appearing in the examination in his place. Then intensive interrogation was done and the person who was appearing in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5966 of 2021(2) dt.16-12-2021 2/2
name of the present petitioner in examination disclosed his name as Deepak Kumar.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot, nor at his instance Deepak Kumar was appearing in the examination.
Per contract, learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.
The F.I.R. shows itself that the present petitioner has managed to participate in the examination by another person, as such, he is not entitled for release of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J)
sanjeev/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging impersonation in school examinations.
Whether the petitioner managed to participate in the examination by another person.
Kamal Kumar
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
