Patna High Court
ADITYA KUMAR SINGHversusThe Union of India through the Central Bureau , Investigation, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to strict conditions and the power of the trial court to cancel it if the petitioner attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Aditya Kumar Singh, was implicated in a fraud case involving alleged unauthorized withdrawals from several bank accounts, with charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. He contended that he opened the accounts on the direction of his superior, the Superintendent of Posts, and was unaware of any fraudulent intent, emphasizing his clean service record and lack of prior departmental action. The CBI opposed his request for anticipatory bail, arguing a risk of absconding and potential trial delays. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, furnishes bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, and cooperates with the trial, while reserving the right to cancel bail if he attempts to delay proceedings. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS and related provisions.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the applicable statutory provisions?
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence that would justify denial of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- fraud
- IPC
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- CBI investigation
- bail conditions
- Section 482
- clean service record
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39800 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2019 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
ADITYA KUMAR SINGH Son of Late Ranjit Prasad Singh Resident of New
Etwarpur, Ram Janki Path P.S- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through the Central Bureau , Investigation, Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hansraj, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raj Singh, Advocate
Mr. Anand Nitin, Advocate
Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shashank Chandra, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
22 06-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Spl. PP for CBI, Sri Shashank Chandra.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (a) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that allegation is of fraudulent withdrawal of money
from SB/MIS/TD account of Patna GPO by Munna in
connivance with Sujay and Rajesh Kumar Sharma, it is next
alleged that an enquiry was conducted on complaint of one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39800 of 2022(22) dt.06-02-2026
2/5
Rekha received through the office of Circle Officer Patna,
wherein it was alleged that some officials of the department
have fraudulently withdrawn customer’s money from the
aforesaid account by opening saving bank account and
misappropriated the Government money, further in inquiry it
transpired that amount withdrawn from 39 accounts out of 40
accounts appears to be suspected, as detailed in the FIR, further
as per inquiry an amount of Rs. 1,60,25,100/- has been
fraudulently withdrawn by Munna using his user ID in
connivance with petitioner, Sujay and Rajesh who initiated and
verified the transaction by using their user ID, further an amount
of Rs. 40.22 lakhs was found deposited in SB account of Rajesh
and his family members, it is next alleged that no photograph of
the account holder was found in the system, thus it is alleged
that fraudulent withdrawals were made from MIS/TD account
which were opened prior to 2000 and were lying unclaimed in
the system, the said accounts were closed in between
03.05.2019 to 08.07.2019 by fraudulently opening SB Accounts
in name of other holders and subsequently made joint B
Accounts with TD/MIS Account, and account opening forms
were also not available along with the photographs of the
account holders, it is further alleged that all accounts were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39800 of 2022(22) dt.06-02-2026
3/5
opened by the petitioner who was not authorized to open the
account.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is
next submitted that petitioner had a blemishless service record
and no departmental proceeding was ever initiated either prior
to institution of the present FIR or subsequent to that. It is also
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, the informant alleges that this petitioner opened the
unauthorised account and also in connivance with Sujay and
Rajesh helped Munna in withdrawing the amount as alleged in
the FIR. It is also submitted that petitioner does not dispute the
fact that he had opened the accounts, but then the accounts were
opened on the direction of the superior authority, i.e.,
Superintendent of Posts. It is next submitted that petitioner was
not even aware that the accounts which he has been directed to
open are fraudulent account or else no prudent employee would
have committed an occurrence of opening fradulent accounts
under his signature and thus would create evidence against
himself and hence would get implicated. It is further submitted
that CBI during the course of investigation never felt the need of
arresting the petitioner, but then charge-sheet came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39800 of 2022(22) dt.06-02-2026
4/5
submitted based on which cognizance was taken, as such
petitioner moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in
the Year 2022 itself, but then the case remained pending before
different Hon’ble Benches.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, but
then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioenr that CBI during the
course of investigation never felt the need of arresting the
petitioner and charge-sheet came to be submitted based on
which cognizance was taken and thus petiitoner moved before
this Court in the year 2022 itself, it is also submitted that in the
event if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner,
the petitioner may abscond, on which the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner will
not abscond rather will co-operate in the trial to prove his
innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39800 of 2022(22) dt.06-02-2026
5/5
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with R.C.
Case No. 0232019A0011 dated 9-10-2019 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the
learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after
obtaining anticipatory bail is trying to delay the framing of
charge or after framing of charge is delaying the trial in any
manner, in both the conditions the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…