IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40484 of 2009 SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BHOJAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DULARPUR, P.O. & P.S. HAWELI KHARAGPUR, DISTRICT-MUNGER, AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, BHOJAL MANDAL MAHAVIDALAYA, HAVELI KHARAGPUR, MUNGER. --PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --OPP.PARTY 5 24.06.2010 Heard Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Narain Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. The petitioner is named accused in a complaint case being principal of a College, carries allegation of committing defalcation in different funds, ill behaving the employees, and also the main allegation against the petitioner, as attributed by the complainant, is that in the practical examination of the students without appointing of the complainant as Examiner, persuaded him to provide marks as per his choice for which he has already realized some amounts from the proposed beneficiaries. It appears from the order of the learned Sessions 2 Judge that taking into consideration the denial of the complainant about his appointment as internal examiner and his signature on the letter it was ordered to get the signatures compared with the specimen signature of the complainant procured in the open court but as it appeared from the report of the Hand-writing and Finger Print Expert that he got compared the signatures of the complainant with his specimen signatures on the initial appointment letter of 1981 with his specimen signature. By the same order the learned Sessions Judge has refused the prayer for anticipatory bail of the co- named accused, the Secretary of the Institution who has already been granted bail by order dated 10th March, 2010 in Cr.Misc. no. 40997 of 2009 and from the bare reading of the complaint petition it appears that four named accused, carrying almost similar allegations and acting in collusion and in connivance of each other. While objecting prayer for anticipatory bail, it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that cognizance was taken as early as in the year 2006 but the petitioner avoided his appearance. Considering the facts and circumstances and the 3 privilege already granted to co-accused, the petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Complaint Case no. 895 C of 2005, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition to attend the Court on each and every date at least for two years and co-operate in early disposal of the case, or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier. In case of failure to attend court on two consecutive dates, the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad