Patna High Court
Subhash SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the allegations warranted further investigation and interrogation of the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Subhash Singh applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S., alleging that he was falsely implicated by an informant. The informant claimed that Singh, as Panchayat Secretary, appointed Dilip Kumar as a teacher without a proper selection process, enabling Dilip to forge an appointment and withdraw a salary of Rs.9,22,747. The petitioner argued that no show‑cause notice was issued before the FIR and that the allegations were baseless. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific allegations and the need for interrogation and further investigation. The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding that the investigation must proceed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail when specific allegations of forgery and financial misconduct are made against the petitioner?
- Whether the absence of a show‑cause notice prior to filing the FIR bars the filing of an anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 316(2), 318(4)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- forgery
- appointment irregularities
- salary withdrawal
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41654 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2024 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Subhash Singh S/O Late Haribansh Singh Resident of Village- Balwaieya P.S
-Dinara, Dist- Rohtas at Sasaram
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 10-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Nauhatta P. S. Case No.259 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant
alleges that petitioner, being Panchayat Secretary appointed
Dilip Kumar as Teacher without Dilip applying for the post and
Dilip based on forged appointment withdrew an amount of
Rs.9,22,747/- by way of salary, thus alleges that petitioner in
connivance with Dilip appointed him as a Teacher.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41654 of 2025(5) dt.10-04-2026
2/2
informant. It is next submitted that no show-cause was issued to
the petitioner prior to instituting the instant FIR. It is submitted
that had a show-cause been issued to the petitioner seeking his
explanation, perhaps the FIR would not have been instituted.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that a specific allegation is alleged
against the petitioner who is Panchayat Secretary that he
appointed Dilip as a Teacher without Dilip applying for the post
and Dilip continued to withdraw his salary as recorded herein
above. It is further submitted that the case requires to be
investigated and interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and
investigation in the case is continuing.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…