Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Jayant Kumar @ Jayant SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to bond and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

Petitioner Jayant Kumar, a junior engineer, was implicated in a FIR alleging forgery of a school headmaster's signature to obtain payment for submersible boring work, invoking sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He contended that the informant fabricated the allegations without a proper inquiry and that he has a clean antecedent. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, assuring cooperation with the investigation and asserting he would not abscond. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in view of the alleged offences.
  • Whether the FIR was lodged without a proper inquiry, justifying bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • false implication
  • FIR
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • Section 482
  • criminal procedure
  • clean antecedent
  • junior engineer
  • fake bill

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73926 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2025 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Jayant Kumar @ Jayant Singh S/o Sunil Kumar Sharma @ Sunil Kumar R/o
                 village - Baliya Bujurg, Police Station - Akbarpur , District - Nawada

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Mahendra Pratap
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Surendra Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   11-02-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2.    The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),

                   338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that the petitioner along with the contractor, based on

                   fake signature of the Headmaster of the concerned school on the

                   bill related to submersible boring, bench and desk etc. obtained

                   payment.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

                   informant without holding a proper inquiry. It is next submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73926 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
                                            2/3




          that had petitioner been given an opportunity of hearing to

          explain his side of the case perhaps the instant FIR would not

          have been instituted. It is next submitted that petitioner is a

          Junior Engineer and the contractor had completed the work and

          had requested the Headmaster to submit the bill as per

          departmental order. It is further submitted that it was the

          Headmaster who submitted the bill but in the FIR it is being

          alleged that based on a fake bill, the payment was obtained. The

          learned counsel next submits that petitioner being Junior

          Engineer is aware of the consequences which would entail in the

          event if it is found that petitioner was also indulged in the

          occurrence. It is also submitted that petitioner will not abscond

          rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

                   5.     Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                   6.     Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail

          bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties

          of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

          court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73926 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                        with Mithapura P.S.Case No.64/2025, subject to the conditions as laid

                        down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.