Patna High Court
Atul PriyadarshiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Atul Priyadarshi, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act for alleged forgery of a bank guarantee. He claimed he had a clean record and that the forged guarantee was produced by an employee, Ajay, without his knowledge. The bank counter‑affidavit asserted that the guarantee was not issued by it. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner had paid a substantial sum to the informant and was therefore complicit. After hearing both sides, the court found the petitioner’s explanations unconvincing and declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of forgery and related offences under the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of knowledge of the forged bank guarantee absolves him from criminal liability.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- bank guarantee
- fraud
- outsourcing contract
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67443 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2024 Thana- AIRPORT District- Patna
======================================================
Atul Priyadarshi son of Vinod Kunal Singh Resident of Village- Anthua, P.S.-
Aliganj, District- Darbhanga Presently Residing At Housing colony,
Kankarbagh, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Smita Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Bank.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2),
318(4) of BNS.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent and the informants alleges that based on bidding,
M/s Biswas Signify Service was selected as an outsourcing
agency and the agency in lieu thereof had submitted bank
guarantee, the service of Biswas Signify Service was terminated
due to non-performance and the bank guarantee was seized and
the bank was asked to enacash the same, when it transpired that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67443 of 2025(5) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
the bank guarantee was forged.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that no
doubt the company of the petitioner got the bid as an
outsourcing agency for which the bank guarantee was
submitted but then the said bank guarantee was obtained by
Ajay, an employee of the company and the petitioner was
completely unaware that Ajay had played fraud with the
company, it is next submitted that when the contract of the
company got cancelled, it was thereafter it came to the notice of
the company that the bank guarantee was forged.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Bank also submits that a counter affidavit has been filed
wherein it has been specifically pleaded that the bank guarantee
was not issued by the Bank.
6. The learned APP vehemently opposes the
anticipatory bail application and submits that if what is being
submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is the correct fact, in that event, the petitioner in order
to establish his bona fide but to have paid an amount of Rs.19
lakhs and odd, i.e.. the sum of the bank guarantee, which was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67443 of 2025(5) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
submitted with the informant at the time when the contract was
obtained, but then the petitioner is litigating which amply
demonstrates his conduct.
7. Considering the submission made by learned A.P.P.
the Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U
Checking your session…