IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3298 of 2010 KAMLESH KUMAR @ KAMLESH KUMAR SANDILYA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 01.02.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case instituted under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Section 420 of the Penal Code. Allegation is that by suppressing certain facts, he obtained appointment on compassionate ground. Specific case is that both the parents of the petitioner was/were in service, and as such, he was not entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the stand of the petitioner that the father had already retired from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that ultimately by the impugned proceeding of the compassionate committee dated 31.07.2009, he has already lost his job as his services has already been terminated. It is next contended that the order terminating his service has been put to challenge by him in C.W.J.C.No. 13994 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation depends upon the interpretation of the Government circular. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts appearing from the record, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Let petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on 2 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the CJM, Lakhisarai in connection with Suryagarha P.S.Case no. 298/09, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as an expression or view of the Court on the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)