Patna High Court
Dhiraj Prakash @ Dhiraj Kumar Prakash @Dheeraj PrakashversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The application for anticipatory bail is allowed.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhiraj Prakash, was charged under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 for allegedly hiring a scholar to sit in the NEET examination, a fraud detected during digital verification. He filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, asserting his innocence and cooperation with the investigation. The CBI opposed the bail, but the court noted the petitioner’s cooperation and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and to cooperate fully in the trial. The order also imposed the standard conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482 of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC despite the serious charges under the IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the precedent set by Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 419, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NEET exam fraud
- IPC sections 419 420 467 468
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- cooperation with investigation
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25221 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Dhiraj Prakash @ Dhiraj Kumar Prakash @Dheeraj Prakash Son of Birendra
Yadav R/O Vill.- Khidra Chak, Barahani, P.S.- Barharia, District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Additional Director, C.B.I., New Delhi New Delhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Gun Sagar Mahto, Advocate
Ms. Urmila Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey
For the CBI : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SC, CBI
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present petition is being filed seeking grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Special
(R.C.) Case No. 01 of 2025 arising out of RC2212025E0003
dated 14.01.2025, Delhi, which has been initiated on the basis of
Madhubani (Purnea Sadar) P.S. Case No. 25 of 2024 dated
05.05.2024, registered against eight accused persons, including
the petitioner, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and thereafter the said
Madhubani P.S. Case has been re-registered as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25221 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
RC2212025E0003 under the same sections of the IPC.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is
accused of hiring the services of a scholar who was to sit in his
place and appear in the NEET Examination but at the time of
digital verification, the fraud was detected and the scholar could
not appear in the examination.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been
implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has
co-operated in the investigation and he further relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra
Kumar Antil Vs. CBI reported as (2022) 10 SCC 51.
5. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the
application of the petitioner.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has co-
operated in the investigation as and when called, the charge-
sheet has been submitted and in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil
Vs. CBI (Supra), this application is allowed.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the concerned Court below within four
weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25221 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Special (R.C) Case No. 01 of 2025 arising out of
RC2212025E0003 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down
in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 /
Section 482 of the BNSS.
8. As a condition of this order, the petitioner is
directed to co-operate in the trial by appearing on each and
every date fixed in the trial either personally or through his
lawyer.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.