Badri Narayan Roy @ Badri Narayan Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26066 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2025 Thana- ANDHRATHARHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Badri Narayan Roy @ Badri Narayan Ray S/o Sri Shivnandan Rai R/o Village - Shiva, P.O - Ganauli, P.S - Andhratharhi , District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Mr. Satyendra Ram, Investigating Officer, Vigilance Bureau, Patna Camp, District - Madhubani through the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate For the Vigilance :
Mr.Arvind Kumar, Law Officer, Vigilance Mr.Paritosh Parimal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ajay Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Andhratharhi P.S. Case No. 168 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The present F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a P.I.L. bearing C.W.J.C. No. 15459 of 2014 whereby the Vigilance Investigation Bureau was directed to verify the records relating to the appointment of teachers. The petitioner
2/4 applied for appointment on the post of Block Teacher in the year 2008 and on the basis of the marks obtained in CTET examination he was appointed vide Memo No. 1362 dated 14.08.2010 in Middle School, Sahuriya. The mark-sheet of the petitioner was sent for verification vide letter no. 2710 dated 09.12.2012. It is alleged that during course of verification, the mark-sheet of the petitioner was found to be fabricated and was found not be in consonance with the records of the concerned institution.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He was appointed on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the examination and the same was verified by the Block Development Officer, Andhrathari, Madhubani vide his letter no. 2710 dated 09.12.2012 and 02.01.2013. In response to his above-mentioned letters, the Principal of Bharatiya Sharirik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Hanuman Nagar, Amrawati, Pune sent a report vide letter no. BSSM/547/13 dated 07.03.2013 wherein it has been stated that all the named persons, including the petitioner, whose name appears at Sl. No. 6 have been admitted. The details given therein are as per the records of the college and the same are true. He further submits that the
3/4 petitioner was duly selected on the basis of the mark-sheet submitted by him and has not committed any offence.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau by referring to the letter dated 06.05.2025, sent by the concerned college to the Police Inspector-cum-Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna whereby it was informed that the mark-sheet of the petitioner was found to be fabricated. In column no. 57 of the said letter, which is Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, the details of the petitioner has been given wherein it has been stated that as per the original register of the Directorate of Sports and Youth Service Maharashtra, Pune, the entry shows that he petitioner is fail and the mark-sheet with Roll No. 392 forwarded by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau as per reference letter was not found to be consistent with the records and the same appears to be fabricated.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the records, it appears that despite opportunity granted by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court to such teachers to resign on their own, the petitioner choose not to resign and he continued to draw the monetary benefits as a teacher. The allegation against the petitioner
4/4 appears to be serious in nature and he did not resign on his own despite opportunity granted to him by the virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench and he continued to draw the monetary benefits as a Block Teacher. Now, in 2025 it has been found that his educational qualification was forged. Further learned Co-ordinate bench vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 78970 of 2023 (Sanjeev Kumar Raman vs. The State of Bihar) has rejected the Anticipatory Bail petition. Similar view was taken by a Co-ordinate bench vide order dated 27.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 58684 pf 2023 (Punita Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The order dated 27.02.2024 has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) No. 16221 of 2025 vide order dated 23.04.2026.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly the same is rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J) vinita/- U