Patna High Court
Ranjit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjit Kumar, a former Class‑II bank officer, applied for anticipatory bail after a warrant of arrest was issued in connection with a 2014 FIR alleging offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 406, 409, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR stemmed from alleged embezzlement of Rs. 5 lakh from the account of Smt. Nutan Devi, involving forged cheques and multiple bank employees. The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR, that the alleged withdrawal was a transfer, and that he was implicated only due to a factual mistake, also highlighting his clean antecedents and the return of money by co‑accused. The State opposed bail, asserting the petitioner’s active participation in the crime. The Court examined the case diary, noting that a supervisory note found the case true against the petitioner and that a warrant had already been issued, and observed the twelve‑year delay in filing the bail application. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner’s role, and lack of parity with other accused, the Court refused anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious IPC offences alleged against him.
- Whether the twelve‑year delay in filing the anticipatory bail application warrants denial.
- Whether the petitioner’s position as a Class‑II officer and alleged involvement in forging signatures precludes bail.
- Whether parity with other accused (e.g., the Branch Manager) requires similar bail treatment.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- bank fraud
- forgery
- delay in bail application
- Class‑II officer
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4668 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2014 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Ranjit Kumar S/o- Late Devendra Prasad @ Devendra Prasad Singh R/v-
Dhanuki Mor, Gaga Setu Road Po- Pahari Ps- Agam Kunwa, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha
Mr.Ashok Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 70 of 2014 dated 08.02.2014
registered under section 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 406, 409 &
120B / 34 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the first information report on 14.02.2012,
Rs. 3,00,000/- was withdrawn from the account of Smt. Nutan
Devi bearing A/C No. 1008001010004376 through cheque
encashed by Manoj Kumar illegally. Further, on 19.12.2012
Rs. 2,00,000/- was credited in the same account through cheque
by one Bhushan Rajak which was withdrawn by him on
different dates in the month of September, 2013. This
embezzlement came to the knowledge of the bank authorities
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4668 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
during internal audit leading to registration of F.I.R. bearing
Madhepura P.S. Case No. 70 of 2014 for the offence under
Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 406, 409 & 120B/34 of the
I.P.C.
4. Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.
and during course of investigation his name has transpired on
the ground that petitioner was working in the concerned Branch
and he was responsible for passing cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/-
presented by Bhushan Rajak. He further submits that cash was
not withdrawn rather Rs. 2,00,000/- was transferred from the
account of Nutan Devi to the account of the co-accused /
Bhushan Rajak. He has been made accused due to mistake of
fact. During course of investigation it came to light that amount
of Rs. 3,00,000/- was withdrawn by Manoj Kumar through
cheque putting forged signature of the account holder Nutan
Devi and the said cheque was passed by the Branch Manager
C.R.C. Krishnan and payment was made by the Bank employee
Janardhan Yadav and cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited in
the bank account of Bhushan Rajak and entry of the cheque was
made by Aman Kumar and only signature was passed by Ranjit
Kumar (petitioner) but when Bhushan Rajak came to know
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4668 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
about the embezzlement, he returned Rs. 2,94,000/- and
Rs. 6,000/- with interest to the bank. As per paragraph no. 9 of
the case diary amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been deposited in
the account of the account holder Nutan Devi by Bhushan
Rajak. The money was withdrawn from the account in question
by Manoj Kumar and Bhushan Rajak and the petitioner is not
the beneficiary of the said illegal withdrawal. Moreover, the
petitoner has been dismissed from Bank service and has
challenged the dismissal order by filing writ petition before this
Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2015 which is pending
adjudication. The Branch Manager of the Bank has been granted
anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.09.2015 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 657 of 2015 (Annexure-P/2). The petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned A.P.P. has opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is
actively involved in the alleged offence.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
perused the materials on record including the impugned order
and the case diary. In paragraph no. 70 of the case diary the
Superintendent of Police, Madhepura in his supervision note has
found the case true against the petitioner. From perusal of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4668 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
paragraph no. 155 of the case diary it is evident that warrant of
arrest has already been issued against the petitioner. After
twelve years of the lodging of the F.I.R. in the year 2014 the
present anticipatory bail application has been filed without
explaining the reasons for delay. There is no parity between the
case of the Branch Manager Choudhary Ranvijay Krishnan and
the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was responsible for
passing forged signature of Bhushan Rajak, who withdrew the
amount in question.
7. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation
and involvement of the petitioner in the case who is a Class- II
Officer, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. The same is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…