Jay Prakash Narayan Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72881 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2019 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Jay Prakash Narayan Singh, S/O Late Chandradip Singh, Resident of VillageShamsher Nagar, P.S. Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad. At present R/O Patna Road, Bhakharua More, Daudnagar Behind Urmila Gas Agency, P.SDaudnagar, Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Pratyush Kumar Singh S/O-Rajendra Kumar Singh Flat no. 101 Panwansi Enclave, PO- B.V College PS- Rajeev Nagar, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bacchan Jee Ojha, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Anil Kumar, APP For the Bank :
Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No.1, Advocate Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Bachchan Jee Ojha, learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No.1, learned Advocate for Opp. Party no.2.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Haspura P.S. Case No. 84 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegedly, while the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Koilawan Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Aurangabad; during his tenure, he is alleged to have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72881 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026 2/3 fraudulently withdrawn Rs.12,48,737.13 from several accounts.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that from the F.I.R. it appears that the same has been instituted just after the retirement of the petitioner, who is said to have superannuated on 31.05.2019. The petitioner is posted in Koilawan Branch for the period 02.01.2017 to 13.03.2019 and thereafter he was transferred to Gaini Branch, but during the period afore noted, no complaint whatsoever has been made. It is further contended that since the son of the petitioner was seriously ill and ultimately died on 18.11.2022, hence the delay has occurred in approaching the Court.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and the Bank vehemently oppose the bail application and submit that the petitioner had earlier moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in the year 2021 in A.B.P. No.562 of 2021, which came to be rejected on 7.7.2021 itself. Thereupon after five years the petitioner again moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and on being aggrieved with the order of rejection of his prayer, he has approached this Court. It is further contended that during the course of enquiry, it has come that the petitioner has fraudulently transferred a huge amount in the account of his son, Praveen Kumar, the details of which has also been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72881 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026 3/3 come during the course of investigation in various paragraphs of the case diary It is further contended that bare perusal of various paragraphs of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner has defalcated the public money and at the time of institution of the F.I.R., the petitioner was under suspension.
6. Be that as it may, considering the materials collected during the course of investigation, as also the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of six years, though the F.I.R. came to be instituted in the year 2019 itself, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.
7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T