Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar ChoubeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner, being merely a faculty member with no participation in the alleged embezzlement, is entitled to anticipatory bail, especially in view of the bail already granted to a similarly situated co‑accused.
Summary
The High Court considered a petition by Ajay Kumar Choubey, a faculty member, seeking anticipatory bail in a case alleging financial embezzlement by the in‑charge principal Sanjay Kumar Rai involving Rs 70 lakhs of college funds. The prosecution alleged offences under IPC sections 420, 409 and 120(B). The petitioner contended that he had no role in the decisions of the Ad‑hoc Committee or the Syndicate that appointed the principal and paid salaries, and pointed to a similar co‑accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail. The Court, noting the petitioner’s lack of involvement, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, ordered that anticipatory bail be granted subject to conditions and a bail bond. The order also imposed conditions regarding sureties, appearance before the trial court, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, a faculty member with no role in the alleged financial irregularities, is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a similarly situated co‑accused mandates the same relief for the petitioner.
- Whether the offences alleged under IPC sections 420, 409 and 120(B) justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 409, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- financial embezzlement
- IPC 420
- IPC 409
- IPC 120B
- faculty member
- college funds
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25299 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2025 Thana- AGION (GARHANI) District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Choubey S/O Late Satrudhan Choubey R/O Village- Dhamaniya,
PS- Agiaon (Garahni), Distt- Bhojpur, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudha Chandra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection
with AGIAON(G) P.S. Case No. 147 of 2025 dated 17.09.2025
registered for the offence punishable under Section/s 420, 409
and 120(B) of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, the in-charge Principal,
Sanjay Kumar Rai, committed financial embezzlement and
irregularities in violation of decisions of the governing
authorities and government instructions. Despite his resignation,
he allegedly withdrew about Rs. 70 lakhs from college funds
and misused the same by distributing money irregularly,
including payments to certain individuals including petitioner
without approval, and also withdrew funds in his own name in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25299 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
violation of rules.
4. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier the petitioner had moved before this Court with a prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail but, the same was dismissed as
withdrawn. It is next submitted that the issue pertains to
payment of salary and, as also, with regard to making in-charge
Principal which was done by the Ad hoc Committee and, under
the order of the Syndicate, the petitioner was paid salary by the
Ad hoc Committee, not only to the petitioner but, to all teaching
and non-teaching staffs of the College as against the duties
discharged by them. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner was in no way connected with the decisions of the Ad
hoc Committee by which the In-charge Principal was appointed
and, as also, the salary was paid. Counsel for the petitioner
refers the statement of the Secretary of the Ad hoc Committee,
who has accepted in his explanation that it was all done in
compliance of the decision of the Syndicate. It is next submitted
that the similarly situated person namely Dr. Sanjay Kumar Rai
has already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 5428 of 2026. It is lastly submitted that the
petitioner bears no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25299 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
considering the fact that the petitioner was merely a faculty
member and had no role to play in such decision, which is said
to have been taken by the Syndicate and, as also, the fact that
the similarly situated co-accused Dr. Sanjay Kumar Rai has
already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks
from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-
VIII, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with AGIAON(G) P.S. Case
No. 147 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the following
conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25299 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U T
Checking your session…