Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28718 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2024 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Guddu Kumar Son of Mahesh Sao Resident of near Devi Mandir, Gopalpur P.S- Naubatpur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in Phulwari Sharif P. S. Case No. 101 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that billing operations of AIIMS, Patna were being conducted by employees of a private agency, namely, Alankit Ltd. It is alleged that certain employees manipulated original bills generated through the Hospital Information System and collected excess amounts from the attendants of patients without depositing the same in AIIMS accounts. Upon internal inquiry, suspicion arose regarding tampering with original billing records and during verification, defalcation of Rs. 2,26,098/- from 72 attendants was revealed. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged against five persons including

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28718 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026 2/2 the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to petty clerical error. Petitioner was employed in the company in question for doing computer work but he left the job much prior to the institution of present F.I.R. and has got no concern with the alleged incident. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and materials available on record indicate active involvement of the petitioner in the offence.

6. Considering the nature and seriousness of accusation, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T