Patna High Court
Sanjay KumarversusThe Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered in 2014 under IPC sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was alleged to have obtained a Gramin Dak Sevak appointment using a forged certificate from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Although the CBI had completed its investigation and filed a charge‑sheet, it had not arrested the petitioner during the investigation. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of any arrest rendered anticipatory bail appropriate. The CBI opposed the bail, contending that the seriousness of the offences warranted continued custody. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Whether the fact that the CBI has filed a charge‑sheet without arresting the petitioner justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- appointment fraud
- CBI investigation
- IPC offences
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3503 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2014 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Son Of Mahendra Pathak Resident Of Village- Bhalhi, P.O.-
Harpur Balha,via- Bajpatti, P.S - Bathnaha, Distt.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saket Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Animush Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, S.C., CBI
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
8 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468,
471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in the
instant case with an allegation that he secured appointment as
Gramin Dak Sewak based on forged and fabricated certificate of
Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, it is next submitted that F.I.R.
came to be instituted based on an enquiry conducted behind
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3503 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
2/3
back of the petitioner, it is further submitted had an opportunity
been given to the petitioner to explain his case perhaps the F.I.R.
would not have been instituted, it is also submitted that F.I.R.
was instituted in the year 2014 and the petitioner till date is
working, it is further submitted that C.B.I. after investigation
submitted charge-sheet but then C.B.I. during the course of
investigation never felt and need of arresting the petitioner, it is
thus submitted that if petitioner was not arrested during the
course of investigation and charge-sheet has been submitted, no
useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf
of the C.B.I. opposes the anticipatory bail and submits that
counter affidavit has been filed but then is not in a position to
rebut the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner that F.I.R. is of the year 2014 and the C.B.I. after
investigation submitted charge-sheet and during the course of
investigation, the C.B.I. never felt the need of arresting the
petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions of the parties, I am
inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Let the petitioner, as named above, in the event of
his arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3503 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
3/3
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court of Special Judge, C.B.I.,
Muzaffarpur, in connection with Trial No.23 of 2022 arising out
of RC024A of 2014, subject to the conditions laid down under
section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section
482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.