Patna High Court
Jay Prakash Narayan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Summary
Jay Prakash Narayan Singh, a former branch manager of Koilawan Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, was charged with offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly withdrawing Rs.12.48 lakh fraudulently. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the FIR was lodged after his retirement and that personal tragedy caused a delay in seeking relief. The State and the bank opposed bail, highlighting that the petitioner had previously been denied bail in 2021 and that he was under suspension at the time of the FIR, with evidence of large transfers to his son’s account. The court noted the six‑year delay in filing the bail application and the serious nature of the alleged fraud involving public money. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail petition but indicated that regular bail could be considered if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite a six‑year delay in filing the application
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged fraud and the petitioner’s suspension preclude anticipatory bail
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail upon surrender
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 409, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay
- bank fraud
- IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 409
- public money defalcation
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72881 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2019 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Jay Prakash Narayan Singh, S/O Late Chandradip Singh, Resident of Village-
Shamsher Nagar, P.S. Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad. At present R/O Patna
Road, Bhakharua More, Daudnagar Behind Urmila Gas Agency, P.S-
Daudnagar, Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pratyush Kumar Singh S/O-Rajendra Kumar Singh Flat no. 101 Panwansi
Enclave, PO- B.V College PS- Rajeev Nagar, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bacchan Jee Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
For the Bank : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No.1, Advocate
Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Bachchan Jee Ojha, learned Advocate for
the petitioner, learned APP for the State and Mr. Suresh Prasad
Singh No.1, learned Advocate for Opp. Party no.2.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Haspura P.S. Case No. 84 of 2019 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 409 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegedly, while the petitioner was posted as
Branch Manager, Koilawan Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank,
Aurangabad; during his tenure, he is alleged to have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72881 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
fraudulently withdrawn Rs.12,48,737.13 from several accounts.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
from the F.I.R. it appears that the same has been instituted just
after the retirement of the petitioner, who is said to have
superannuated on 31.05.2019. The petitioner is posted in
Koilawan Branch for the period 02.01.2017 to 13.03.2019 and
thereafter he was transferred to Gaini Branch, but during the
period afore noted, no complaint whatsoever has been made. It
is further contended that since the son of the petitioner was
seriously ill and ultimately died on 18.11.2022, hence the delay
has occurred in approaching the Court.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and the
Bank vehemently oppose the bail application and submit that the
petitioner had earlier moved before the learned Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad in the year 2021 in A.B.P. No.562 of 2021, which
came to be rejected on 7.7.2021 itself. Thereupon after five years
the petitioner again moved before the learned Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad and on being aggrieved with the order of rejection of
his prayer, he has approached this Court. It is further contended
that during the course of enquiry, it has come that the petitioner
has fraudulently transferred a huge amount in the account of
his son, Praveen Kumar, the details of which has also been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72881 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
come during the course of investigation in various paragraphs of
the case diary It is further contended that bare perusal of various
paragraphs of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner has
defalcated the public money and at the time of institution of the
F.I.R., the petitioner was under suspension.
6. Be that as it may, considering the materials
collected during the course of investigation, as also the fact that
the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of six
years, though the F.I.R. came to be instituted in the year 2019
itself, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.
7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the
court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays
for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit
without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
U T
Checking your session…