IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40997 of 2009 SURESH PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Sufal Singh, village Baijalpur, PO Gobadda, PS Haweli Kharagpur, district Munger, at present Member, Ad hoc Committee, Bhojal Mandal Mahavidalaya, Haveli Kharagpur, Munger – petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Sumant Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, A. P. P. For the complainant : Mr. Narain Singh, Senior Advocate. 2 10.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under sections 419, 384, 465, 477A and 409 of the Penal Code. A complaint has been filed by one Arbind Kumar Singh, Ex-lecturer of Bhojal Mandal Mahavidalaya, Haveli Kharagpur, Munger alleging therein that the petitioner and the Principal of the college had misappropriate large amount of money. It is also alleged that they have wrongly dismissed the complainant from service without taking the approval of the Intermediate Council. The allegation is that some students were given marks on their written answer sheets which were actually blank. Finally it is alleged that the petitioner along with four to five unknown persons kidnapped the complainant and forced him to put his signature on a register and some blank papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a terminated employee of the college. His termination has been approved by Intermediate Council and as such he has filed the complaint case on completely frivolous grounds. For the purpose of showing that the service of the 2 complainant was terminated in accordance with law, several documents have been annexed including the resolution of the managing committee contained in Annexure 4, the enquiry conducted and the resolution finally taken after the enquiry with respect to the qualifications etc. of the complainant. As far as the allegations that marks have been allotted on the blank answer sheets, counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Sessions Judge, Munger has not taken into account the actual facts and has sent the documents for examination by hand writing expert which in fact have no bearing on the present case. The case is that the complainant and one Sitaram Singh were appointed as examiners for Intermediate examination held in 2004. The answer sheets allegedly bear the signature of the complainant. The complainant challenges those signatures by submitting that in fact they do not tally with the signature of the complainant on an application filed in the court below which is contained in Annexure 1/C. The Sessions Judge has noted the submissions of the complainant and the Public Prosecutor and has recorded that the signatures on the answer sheets do not tally with the signatures at Annexure 1/C. In my opinion, the documents sent in itself was defective. The signature of the complainant on appointment letter should be the admitted signature and that ought to be compared with the signature put on the answer sheets and the signature before the court below and the documents on which the complainant has signed after being appointed as an examiner. 3 These aspects have caused confusion. Therefore, this court cannot, on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the complainant or indeed the findings of Raza and Raza handwriting experts, come to a conclusion that the signature on the answer sheets were not of the complainant. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation that the complainant was kidnapped appears to be prima facie a false story and the crux of the matter lies in the fact that the complainant was dismissed from service and was also held responsible for giving wrong marks on blank answer sheets. Considering all these aspects of the matter I do not think that it is a case in which this court can refuse the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender within six weeks in connection with Complaint Case No. 895C/2005 on furnishing bail bond of rupees ten thousand with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)