Phanindra Nath Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59218 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2014 Thana- BIHIA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Phanindra Nath Pandey son of Late Ram Byas Pandey Resident of VillageBihiya, Ps- Bihiya, Dist- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Kumar , Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam , APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State .

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468 , 471 and 120 ( B ) of IPC .

3 . As per the prosecution case , informant namely Lal Bahadur Mahto, alleged that this petitioner along with other coaccused persons collected Rs. 3,000/- from each student in the name of examination fees and for which two counters were also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59218 of 2025(2) dt.01-09-2025 2/3 opened but neither any admit card were issued nor any examination was conducted. It is further alleged that upon enquiry , it came into the light that college in question was closed and as such , this petitioner along with accused persons cheated poor students and misappropriated money of innocent students.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case . None of the witness have supported the allegation against this petitioner and petitioner has got no concern with the alleged occurrence . There is no evidence that any money was embezzled by this petitioner and as such , no case under sections 420, 467, 468 , 471 and 120 ( b ) is made out against this petitioner.

5 . Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from bare perusal of impugned order, it is apparent that the present F.I.R. was instituted in the year 2014 and petitioner has moved before this Court for anticipatory bail after lapse of more than 10 years for which there is no plausible explanation . Petitioner has got 3 criminal antecedents of similar nature .

6. Considering the nature of accusation , delay in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59218 of 2025(2) dt.01-09-2025 3/3 moving the anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble Court i. e ,. after lapse of more than 10 years, criminal antecedents of the petitioner and and circumstances of the case , prayer for prearrest bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Koushik/- U T