Patna High Court
Vimal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, finding that the circumstances did not warrant its grant.
Summary
The petitioner, Vimal Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging cheating and forgery under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that he induced the informant to pay Rs. 85,000 for admission and certificates that were never provided, and that he also assaulted the informant. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to political enmity, highlighted the seven‑year delay in filing the FIR, and pointed to a prior transaction where a payment was returned. The informant and the State opposed bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s alleged habit of cheating and his criminal antecedent. After considering the facts, the delay, the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s past cases, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged offences of cheating, forgery and criminal intimidation
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent justify denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- forgery
- IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
- political enmity
- criminal antecedent
- delay in FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13573 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
======================================================
Vimal Kumar S/O Sanjay Mandal R/O Village- Ghailarh, P.S- Ghailarh,
Distt.- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State.
02. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending
his arrest in connection with Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 251 of
2025, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
03. As per prosecution case, the petitioner and other
co-accused persons, giving inducement of getting admission and
certificates of B. Ed., D.El.Ed etc., took money from the
informant and some other persons. The petitioner assured the
informant that he would get admission for the informant in some
college at Uttarakhand and thereafter at Rajasthan but no
certificate was ever issued, though some persons were taken to
Rajasthan for appearing in the examination. Thus, the informant
was cheated of Rs. 85,000/-. Further allegation against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13573 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
petitioner is that when the informant approached the petitioner
for making enquiry, she was abused and assaulted. Her mobile
phone was damaged and the petitioner threatened the informant
with false implication.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
The petitioner is Mukhiya of Village-Ghailarh and due to
political enmity, he has been made accused in the present case.
Learned counsel further submits that the FIR has been lodged
after seven years of the date of alleged occurrence and this shows
the falsity of allegation. The same informant lodged another case
in the district of Madhepura with similar type of allegation.
Initially the informant did not make Pankaj Kumar and Vikas
Kumar as accused in the present case, however, when the same
was pointed out, subsequently, they were also made accused in
the present case. Co-accused Vikas Kumar has been granted
anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner earlier used to run one Narayana ITI
College and the informant enrolled in the said college and made
payment of Rs. 25,000/- which was returned to the husband of
the informant in cash along with the documents. Except for the
said transaction, the petitioner has no other transaction with the
informant. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13573 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
no connection with B. K. Academy, the institution claimed to be
run by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner has got antecedent of seven cases and he is on bail in
all such cases.
05. Learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned APP for the State vehemently oppose the submission
made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
informant submits that the informant was cheated of Rs. 85,000/-
and the said money was paid through cheque and cash. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner is in the habit of
cheating innocent persons. Learned counsel further submits that
the petitioner concealed his criminal history before the learned
trial court and from the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, it is
apparent that he is a habitual offender.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to
entertain the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
U T
Checking your session…