2025:JHHC:19332 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3636 of 2025 ----- 1. NANDINI KUMARI@ NANDINI KUMARI, D/0- Sanjay Kumar , R/O- Q. No.- 1090, Street-15, P.O & P.S- Sectore-9, Bokaro, Dist- Bokaro 2. SHIVANI KUMARI, D/O- Doman Mandal, R/O- Bando, Haripur, P.O & P.S- Dumka, Dist- Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. MANJU GOPE, D/O- Lebiya Gope, R/O- Azad Path, Birsa Nagar, P.S- Jamshedpur, Dist- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 4. HUSSAINI ARA, D/O- Israfil Ansari, R/O- Bhaga Road, New Colony Hussain Nagar, P.O & P.S- Jorapokhar, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 5. PUJA KUMARI, D/O- Santosh Prasad Tatwa,R/O- LCH Colony, P.O & P.S-Putki, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 6. PALLAVI KUMARI, D/O- Shiv Kumar Mallah, R/O- Near Shiv Mandir, Chhotanagri, P.O & P.S- Tetulmari, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 7. UMME SALMA, D/O- Md. Rizwan Ansari, R/O- Near Bangali Club, Sijua Colony, P.O & P.S- Jogta, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 8. PAYAL KUMARI, D/O- Raju Kumhar, R/O-vill-Pipratand, P.O & P.S-Suriya, Dist- Giridih, Jharkhand. 9. ANJALI KUMARI, D/O-Jageshwar Ravidas, R/O-vill-Pordag, P.O & P.S-Nimiyaghat, Dist- Giridih, Jharkhand. 10.SNEHLATA MARANDI, D/O-Ram Nath Marandi, R/O-Vill-Alkusha, P.O & P.S- Kenduadih, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ...Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ….... CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. …..... For the Petitioner : Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate ---- 06/ 15.07.2025: Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under section 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025 for offences registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 61(2) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita pending before the Court of Ms. Arti Mala, learned C.J.M. Dhanbad. 3. As per the First Information Report, the informant stated that for the 2024– 2025 session, the admission process for the DGNM course at the School of Nursing, Central Hospital, Dhanbad, began with the publication of the prospectus and application form on the BCCL website. A four-member inquiry committee was constituted to verify the 80 application forms received, out of which 70 were accepted. Subsequently, a five-member selection committee prepared a merit list of 50 candidates based on marks obtained in the exam conducted by the JCECE Board. These 50 candidates were called for physical document verification, after which a final merit list of 15 candidates was prepared, and 9 were placed on a waiting list. During the final verification of original documents on 06.01.2025, the informant noticed overwriting on some application forms. Upon further scrutiny, it was found that the marksheets of 10 out of the 15 selected candidates were forged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner, along with other candidates, was called for a medical test on 06.01.2025, not for document verification, as the same had already been completed by two separate committees comprising four and five members, respectively. These committees, consisting of doctors, had thoroughly reviewed the application forms and prepared the merit list after following due procedure. Notably, neither committee raised any concerns regarding irregularities in the forms. However, on 06.01.2025, the date fixed for the medical examination, not document verification, the issue of overwriting in the forms was suddenly raised. 5. Learned counsel representing the state has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners have committed a grave offence, which involves the tempering and use of forged documents with intention to deceive and obtain admission in the DGNM course. The petitioners had deliberately tampered and overwrote in the marksheet, which was a premeditated act to mislead the authorities. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel representing the State, and upon perusal of the case records, it appears that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners involving the use of forged documents with an intent to secure admission to the DGNM course. The records further reveal that the petitioners allegedly tampered with and overwrote the marksheet in a deliberate and premeditated manner to mislead the selection authorities. The act prima facie constitutes a grave offence involving fraud and forgery, which strikes at the root of the integrity of public institutions and selection processes. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the allegations, and the involvement of forged documents, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, theor prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. Anu/-Cp3. (ANANDA SEN, J.)