Vimal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13573 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== Vimal Kumar S/O Sanjay Mandal R/O Village- Ghailarh, P.S- Ghailarh, Distt.- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State.

02. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 251 of 2025, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

03. As per prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons, giving inducement of getting admission and certificates of B. Ed., D.El.Ed etc., took money from the informant and some other persons. The petitioner assured the informant that he would get admission for the informant in some college at Uttarakhand and thereafter at Rajasthan but no certificate was ever issued, though some persons were taken to Rajasthan for appearing in the examination. Thus, the informant was cheated of Rs. 85,000/-. Further allegation against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13573 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026 2/3 petitioner is that when the informant approached the petitioner for making enquiry, she was abused and assaulted. Her mobile phone was damaged and the petitioner threatened the informant with false implication.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is Mukhiya of Village-Ghailarh and due to political enmity, he has been made accused in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR has been lodged after seven years of the date of alleged occurrence and this shows the falsity of allegation. The same informant lodged another case in the district of Madhepura with similar type of allegation. Initially the informant did not make Pankaj Kumar and Vikas Kumar as accused in the present case, however, when the same was pointed out, subsequently, they were also made accused in the present case. Co-accused Vikas Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner earlier used to run one Narayana ITI College and the informant enrolled in the said college and made payment of Rs. 25,000/- which was returned to the husband of the informant in cash along with the documents. Except for the said transaction, the petitioner has no other transaction with the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13573 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026 3/3 no connection with B. K. Academy, the institution claimed to be run by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has got antecedent of seven cases and he is on bail in all such cases.

05. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant was cheated of Rs. 85,000/- and the said money was paid through cheque and cash. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in the habit of cheating innocent persons. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner concealed his criminal history before the learned trial court and from the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, it is apparent that he is a habitual offender.

06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/- U T