Patna High Court
Sudhir KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Sudhir Kumar petitioned the Patna High Court for anticipatory bail after learning that he was named in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on 7 October 2022, co‑accused Sonu Kumar attempted to appear for a recruitment examination using Sudhir Kumar’s identity, constituting fraud and forgery. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, had clean antecedents, and was merely a victim of Sonu Kumar’s fraudulent act. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged forgery. After considering the gravity of the offences and the specific accusations, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- cheating
- IPC
- criminal procedure
- identity fraud
- exam fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72328 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-773 Year-2022 Thana- AGAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
Sudhir Kumar Son of Bishundev Sharama Resident of Village - Bhagalpura,
Panchayat - Paro, Post - Khadigram, P.S.- Barhat, Bangawan, District - Jamui,
Bihar - 811313
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
07.10.2022, examination of R.R.B. Level-I, Phase-4 was going
on at J.M.D. Solutions, Chhoti Pahadi, P.S.- Agamkuan,
District- Patna. During verification of the admit card, it was
found that co-accused Sonu Kumar had come to appear in the
examination in place of this petitioner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72328 of 2025(3) dt.15-01-2026
2/2
committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R., it is
apparent that it was co-accused Sonu Kumar who made a futile
attempt to appear in the R.R.B. examination in the name of this
petitioner and thus, petitioner is himself a victim of the
circumstances. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
and during scrutiny, it was found that co-accused Sonu Kumar
was trying to appear in the examination for recruitment in a
Government job in place of this petitioner and thereby, both of
them are trying to commit forgery.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…