Patna High Court
Kumar Gaurav RoyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the inquiry was conducted without hearing and there is no incriminating material against the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Kumar Gaurav Roy, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. The FIR was filed after a vigilance inquiry into his appointment as a teacher without registration under an amnesty scheme, based on a complaint by Arun Paswan. The petitioner contended that the inquiry was conducted unilaterally, he was denied a hearing, and the allegations were false and fabricated, asserting a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court observed that the inquiry was indeed carried out without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and found no incriminating material, thereby granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bail order required a bond, sureties, and compliance with conditions relating to appearance, non‑tampering with witnesses, and refraining from further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR is alleged to have been filed without giving the accused a hearing.
- Whether the allegations under the specified IPC sections constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or committing further offences.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC
- Section 420
- Section 438
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- vigilance inquiry
- false allegations
- bail conditions
- teacher appointment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6722 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- DHANGAI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Kumar Gaurav Roy son of Sri Ram Ishwar Singh Resident Of village-
Kusumha, Ps- Aayar, Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No.56 of 2025, F.I.R dated
04.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution story, an FIR was lodged by
informant Arun Paswan pursuant to an order passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 15459 of 2014, following which the Bihar State Vigilance
Department initiated Vigilance Inquiry No. B.S. 8 of 2015.
During the inquiry into educational certificates, it was found
that the petitioner, Kumar Gaurav Ray, had been appointed as a
teacher without registration under the amnesty scheme.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6722 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
the basis of inquiry which is said to have been conducted
unilaterally, the F.I.R. is said to have been lodged without giving
any opportunity of hearing and the allegations which are
levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. It has
further been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that inquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and
no opportunity of hearing was ever given to him to explain his
side and save and except suspicion, there is nothing
incriminating against the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M. VII, Bhojpur at Ara, in
connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No.56 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6722 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…