IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35661 of 2008 DEVESH KUMAR DIWAKAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 25.09.2008 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner while working as the Booking Clerk, Ticket Counter of Railways is alleged to have sold the tickets, which on verification was not found to be genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Bureau of Investigation has not properly investigated and did not verify the genuineness of the tickets along with the register with regard to maintenance of the tickets, and as a matter of fact, the petitioner sold the tickets which were entered into the register, and as such, the petitioner can not be held responsible for the alleged fake tickets. It is further submitted that after investigation sanction order for prosecution was passed by the competent authority, however, the said authority also did not properly verify the records and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is said to have sold out the fake tickets, and on such faulty - 2 - investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for the offence alleged. Learned counsel further submits that on perusal of the first information report it would appear that out of 12 tickets sold by the petitioner on the alleged date of occurrence, three on verification were found to be genuine and other 9 tickets were already sold before the joining of the petitioner. As regards 24 tickets out of which 18 were found fake it is submitted that the petitioner can not be held responsible for the tickets which he received for issuance. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation submits that the tickets as mentioned in the sanction order in the first lot were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and on verification from the printing press it has been found to be not genuine, and as such, after investigation having found the prima facie case true against the petitioner, charge sheet has been submitted against him. Considering the submissions of the parties and the allegation made in the first information report as well as the charge sheet and other documents brought on record as also the nature of allegation levelled, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer is, accordingly, rejected. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) - 3 -