Patna High Court
Manoj KumarversusThe Union of India through the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to stipulated conditions.
Summary
Manoj Kumar, a Gramin Dak Sevak, was implicated in a 2014 FIR alleging forgery of a Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board certificate to secure his appointment, invoking IPC sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI investigated, filed a charge‑sheet, but never deemed his arrest necessary. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the FIR is old, he remains employed, and arrest would serve no purpose. The CBI opposed the bail. The Patna High Court, after hearing counsel, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and compliance with conditions under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the pending FIR and charge‑sheet.
- Whether the age of the FIR and the CBI's decision not to arrest during investigation justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — 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
- FIR
- charge sheet
- IPC
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66702 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2014 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Manoj Kumar S/o Lal Babu Singh R/o vill - Shyampur Tole Chamainiya,
ward no. 2, P.S. - Shyampur Bhatha, Distt. - Sheohar, at present GDS BPM,
Rasalpur Raghunathpur Branch Office, Distt. - Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bihar Patna
2. The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P.
For C.B.I. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Spl. P.P./Sc
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-05-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Ramakant Sharma, 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 senior 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66702 of 2024(3) dt.15-05-2026
2/3
came to be instituted based on an enquiry conducted behind
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66702 of 2024(3) dt.15-05-2026
3/3
his arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be
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 T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.