Vikrama Singh @ Rajendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through E.O.U.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53212 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2025 Thana- ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR District- Patna ====================================================== Vikrama Singh @ Rajendra Singh S/o Late Ram Chela Singh R/o VillageChodehara, Post Office- Harinathpur, P.S.- Mohania, District- Kaimur, Bhabhua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through E.O.U. Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr.Advocate Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr.Advocate Mr.Vijay Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party / E.O.U.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 07 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is alleged that petitioner fraudulently secured appointment in the police department on the post of Constable on 12.05.1982 in Rohtas by impersonating his cousin (Fufera Bhai) namely Vikrama Singh, son of Late Ram Chela Singh, by dishonestly misusing his cousin's educational and identity

2/4 documents and continued in service till his retirement on 31.01.2023 as a Police Sub-Inspector from Sheohar district. Upon inquiry, the real identity of petitioner was established as Rajendra Singh, son of Late Brahmadeo Singh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence, as alleged in the F.I.R. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 12.05.1982 after proper verification of all the documents by the appointing authority and throughout the service, no complaint whatsoever was raised either against the service of the petitioner or against his identity, however after retirement, only on suspicion, present F.I.R. was lodged. Petitioner has been made accused in the present case only for the reason that PAN number of petitioner and one another person in similar, however, the authority concerned failed to appreciate the fact that after submitting the required documents, the department released the PAN number and it is not the case that petitioner had given any forged document for obtaining PAN number. It is the duty of income tax department to explain as to how two similar PAN number has been provided to two different persons and on this ground, petitioner cannot be made responsible. Moreover, after filing of the F.I.R., the concerned

3/4 department has already initiated departmental proceeding against petitioner, which is pending consideration. Petitioner is 62 years old, suffering from various ailments and claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned senior counsel for E.O.U. vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner secured appointment in the police service dishonestly by using educational and identity documents of his cousin namely Vikrama Singh. During inquiry, all the certificates were verified and statement of local villagers and panchayat representatives were recorded and all supported the allegation levelled in the FIR. Upon verification, it was found that two separate Pension Payment Orders (PPO) had been generated against the same PAN, bearing no. AZAPS6506Q, thereby exposing fraudulent financial benefits being availed by petitioner.

6. However, considering the fact that petitioner remained in service for 40 years and no action was taken by the department and after 41 years of the alleged appointment, F.I.R. has been lodged and the fact that petitioner is suffering from various ailments, having clean antecedent, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is allowed.

4/4

7. According, in the event of arrest/surrender before the trial court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub- Judge 1st, Patna / concerned Court in connection with Economics Offence P.S. Case No. 7 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T