Patna High Court
Rameshwar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Summary
The petitioner, Rameshwar Kumar, was implicated in an FIR alleging cheating, forgery and related offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Bihar Examination Conduct Act for allegedly using an electronic device for gambling during an examination. He contended that no device was recovered from his possession and that the charges were based on suspicion, noting that similarly situated co‑accused had been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal antecedent, though the petitioner had been acquitted in a related case. The Court examined the lack of material seized from the petitioner, the precedent of bail to co‑accused, and the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail. It granted the petitioner anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond, sureties and several conditions, including cooperation with the trial and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the FIR alleging offences under the IPC and Bihar Examination Conduct Act.
- Whether the absence of seizure of the electronic device from the petitioner’s possession justifies bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 224, 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- forgery
- examination conduct
- electronic device
- Bihar Examination Conduct Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2817 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2023 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran
======================================================
Rameshwar Kumar son of Gurudayal Ray @ Guru Dayal Ray Resident Of
Village -Halkhoriyachak, Po- Katesar, Ps- Bihta, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Jagjit Roshan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 130 of 2023, F.I.R. dated
14.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471, 224, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4
of Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981.
3. According to prosecution case, during search by the
Magistrate and others, the petitioner and others were found
using electronic device for gambling in examination.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2817 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not
committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from
the F.I.R. that nothing has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has been made
accused on the basis of suspicion in fact, the petitioner has
deposited his electronic device before the examination in the
office of Examination Centre in question and the informant has
implicated only those persons who have submitted equipment
before the concerned authority. Learned counsel further submits
that if some equipment would have recovered from the
possession of the petitioner, then the informant must arrested the
petitioner at the place of occurrence (Examination Centre), apart
from the aforesaid, from the seizure list it appears that informant
has not mentioned the details of the electronic device which was
recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused
persons and the similarly situated co-accused persons has been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
18.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84792 of 2023 and another
co-accused person, namely, Deepak Kumar Singh has been
granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 17.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5447 of
2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2817 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner
carries one criminal antecedent of one case but fairly submits
that the petitioner has been acquitted by Judgment dated
26.07.2025 by learned court below itself.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that nothing has been recovered from the conscious
possesion of this petitioner and also similarly situated co-
accused person has been granted bail by this Court, let the
petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of thirty days from the
date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra or Successor Court, in
connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 130 of 2023, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with
other following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2817 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…