Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35984 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani ====================================================== Anil Kumar S/o Ganga Ram R/o Village- Bathne, P.S.- Pandaul, DistrictMadhubani . Presently Post at Primary School, Kamlabadi, P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hansraj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Mishra, APP For the Vigilance :

Mr.Arvind Kumar, Spl. P.P.

Mr.Paritosh Parimal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-06-2025 Heard Mr. Hansraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the State and Mr. Arvind Kumar along with Mr. Paritosh Parimal, learned Spl. P.P. for the Vigilance.

2. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Pandaul P.S.Case No.63 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the of the Indian Penal Code (under Sections 319(2), 338(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(1) of the BNS, 2023).

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Teacher on the basis of fake and forged certificates.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35984 of 2025(2) dt.25-06-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs that the petitioner has been terminated and in this regard, he has made specific statement in paragraph no.10 of the bail application though he admits that the Pairvikar has not given him the date of termination of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent and at the time of furnishing of the bail application, the petitioner will produce the termination order.

5. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Vigilance along with the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the specific statement made in paragraph no.10 of the bail application, this Court is of the opinion that the similarly situated teachers, who have been made accused in the Vigilance case have been granted pre-arrest bail upon their termination, the petitioner has informed that he will furnish the termination order at the time of furnishing of the bail bond, the petitioner, who has clean antecedent, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned district court within a period of four weeks

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35984 of 2025(2) dt.25-06-2025 3/3 from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani/concerned court, in connection with Pandaul P.S.Case No.63 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS of 2023 with further condition that at the time of furnishing of the bail bond, the petitioner will produce the termination order.

7. The learned district court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its force.

(Purnendu Singh, J) chn/- U T