Patna High Court
Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations involve serious offences and the investigation must be allowed to proceed.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in connection with a case alleging he facilitated a fraudulent appearance in a constable recruitment examination in exchange for Rs 5 lakh. The prosecution alleged that the informant, Chottu, confessed that Shivam had taken his place in the exam with the petitioner’s assistance, constituting offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bihar Examination Act. The petitioner argued that he has a clean record and that Chottu’s confessional statement, made while in police custody, lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged corruption and the need for continued investigation. The court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation justified denial of the relief. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether a confessional statement made by an accused in police custody is admissible or can be the basis to deny bail.
- Whether the alleged conduct falls within the offences defined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bihar Examination Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 112(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
- Bihar Examination Act — s. 10, 11
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- examination fraud
- corruption
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
- confessional statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17893 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2025 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Singh S/o Keshav Prasad Singh R/o
Village - Ganili, P.O - Madhodih, P.S - Tarapur, District – Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 14-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 6 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2),
112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 10 and 11
of Bihar Examination Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that Chottu was apprehended, who disclosed that he was
a candidate in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2023
issued for appointment of Constable, further in his place Shivam
appeared in the written examination with help of petitioner, who
took Rs. 5 lakh in lieu of the favour showered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17893 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
2/2
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case based
on confessional statement of Chottu. It is next submitted that
Chottu disclosed that in the exam, which was conducted for
appointment of Constable, in his place Shivam appeared in
connivance of the petitioner, who took an amount of Rs. 5 lakh
for showering the said favour. It is reiterated and submitted that
confessional statement of apprehended-accused in police
custody does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan
Prasad, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
and submits that of late in the State of Bihar, occurrence of the
nature as alleged has grown with impunity, as such investigation
and interrogation of the petitioner is also required and
investigation in the case is continuing.
6. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.