Subhash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41654 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2024 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Subhash Singh S/O Late Haribansh Singh Resident of Village- Balwaieya P.S -Dinara, Dist- Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Nauhatta P. S. Case No.259 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the B.N.S.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that petitioner, being Panchayat Secretary appointed Dilip Kumar as Teacher without Dilip applying for the post and Dilip based on forged appointment withdrew an amount of Rs.9,22,747/- by way of salary, thus alleges that petitioner in connivance with Dilip appointed him as a Teacher.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41654 of 2025(5) dt.10-04-2026 2/2 informant. It is next submitted that no show-cause was issued to the petitioner prior to instituting the instant FIR. It is submitted that had a show-cause been issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation, perhaps the FIR would not have been instituted.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that a specific allegation is alleged against the petitioner who is Panchayat Secretary that he appointed Dilip as a Teacher without Dilip applying for the post and Dilip continued to withdraw his salary as recorded herein above. It is further submitted that the case requires to be investigated and interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and investigation in the case is continuing.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T