Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85662 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2013 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Son of Mahendra Prasad Resident of Fort Area, Ambedkar Chowk, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yash Mathur, Advocate Mr. Md Fazle Karim, Advocate For the Opposite Party/state:

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026

1. Heard the parties.

2. This is second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends his arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 369 of 2013 dated 10.09.2013 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468 & 34 of the I.P.C.

3. Earlier, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected vide order dated 13.05.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12860 of 2014.

4. As per the F.I.R. it is alleged that the petitioner ensured his selection by sending some one else in his place in the physical test conducted for Constable recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 / 2012.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case inasmuch as he has not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85662 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026 2/2 committed any offence in the manner alleged. He further submits that the name of the person who appeared in place of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. which itself falsifies the allegation that the petitioner had not appeared in the physical test. He next submits that in fact the petitioner had appeared in the physical test and it was verified by the officials and then only the petitioner was allowed to participate in physical test. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner, taking into account the fact that petitioner tried to argue the matter afresh on certain grounds and this Court at the time of hearing of first anticipatory bail application took all the relevant factors into consideration and thereafter rejected the prayer for bail on merit on 13.05.2014 and after eleven years the petitioner has again approached this Court for second time for grant of anticipatory bail, accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner on certain grounds placed for the second time. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T