Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75030/2025bail rejected

Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-23Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75030 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2021 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada ====================================================== ANIL KUMAR S/o- Late Sidheshwar Prasad Sinha R/v- Pipra Ps- Wazirganj Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vikas Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Rajauli P.S. Case No. 434 of 2021 instituted under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 26.08.2021 by the informant, Manoj Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that in the contract of HL bridge over Tilaiya river under PMGSY, the petitioner has submitted certain documents which were found to be forged and the certificate vide letter no. 455 dated 16.06.2016 was not issued. In that background, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that belated FIR for the 2016 certificate has been lodged, he has no role to play. He further submits that he had no knowledge about the lodging of the FIR and came to the notice only in the month of November 2021.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75030 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026 2/2

5. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer submitting that a forged certificate was issued to procure the tender and as the petitioner was the beneficiary, cannot exonerate himself for the alleged act. Further, contrary to the submission put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner the case diary shows that at least on 21.06.2024, the police raided home of the petitioner and found him absconding.

6. He preferred anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Judge only in the month of September, 2024.

7. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the belated approach the Court, in that background, it would be appropriate that the petitioner seek bail.

8. The anticipatory bail stands rejected.

9. If the petitioner surrenders within a period of four weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take up the matter and dispose it of preferably on the same day. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T