Banshidhar Kumar Rao @ Bashidhar Kumar Rao v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Investigation Officer, Bhagalpur, Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33740 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-647 Year-2023 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== Banshidhar Kumar Rao @ Bashidhar Kumar Rao S/o- Balram Prasad @ Banram Prasad Rao Resident Of Village- Majhgay, Ps- Rajoun, Dist- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through Vigilance Investigation Officer, Bhagalpur, Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the Vigilence :
Mr. A. Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Banka P.S. Case No. 647 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC.
3. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner is a Panchayat Teacher. As per allegation, he secured job on the basis of forged certificate. The certificate was verified and it was found to be forged.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the authenticity and genuineness of the certificate is still under investigation. The petitioner is a person of clean antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Vigilence has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33740 of 2025(5) dt.27-11-2025 2/2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the certificate has already been verified from Jharkhand Academic Counsil, Ranchi and it was found that the certificate was forged. He has further submitted the petitioner has not resigned from the job within the amnesty period granted by the High Court in CWJC No. 15459 of 2014. Learned counsel has further submitted that on the similar ground, coordinate Bench has refused the prayer for anticipatory bail in another case in Cr. Misc. No. 47736 of 2024.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T