Rajnikant Praveen @ Rajnikant PravinversusThe State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78986 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Rajnikant Praveen @ Rajnikant Pravin S/o- Radhika Raman Prasad Sinha
                 R/v- Pokharpur Ps- Giriyak Dist- Nalanda
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
                                                   Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.
                                                   Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Adv.
                 For SVU                           Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   18-02-2026                   Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the

                   SVU.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 12

                   of the P.C. Act and Section 61(2) (a) of the B.N.S.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution is that a D.A. case was

                   registered against the petitioner, who was District Education

                   Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran and his wife, who was a

                   contractual teacher by the Special Vigilance Unit with the

                   allegation that they had accumulated disproportionate assets to

                   the extent of Rs. 1,87, 23, 625/- which was earned through

                   corrupt and illegal means.

                                 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits, at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78986 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
                                            2/4




          the outset, that the petitioner was the District Education Officer,

          Bettiah while his wife was earlier a contractual teacher and

          subsequently Director of School. It is submitted that after the

          lodging of the First Information Report, cash and jewelry were

          shown to have been recovered from the residential premises of

          the petitioner at Bettiah and the rented residential premises of

          the    wife     and     upon      completion         of   investigation,   the

          disproportionate asset was found to be Rs. 7,39,53,502/- during

          the check period. It is further submitted that the legitimate and

          verifyable income of the petitioner and his wife have been

          deliberately overlooked by the Special Vigilance Unit (SVU)

          and proper consideration of the petitioner’s actual income

          during the check period from different legal sources, which is to

          the tune of Rs. 4,38,75,202/- has also not been properly

          considered. Similarly, the income of the petitioner’s wife during

          the relevant period has also not been properly calculated and as

          a matter of fact, the actual income of the petitioner along with

          his wife would be Rs. 6,71,10,514/-. The Investigating Agency

          has also not considered the fact that the amount recovered

          during the search pertains to one Yes Kriti Foundation duly

          registered charitable trust managed by the petitioner’s mother-

          in-law and the property of the trust has been wrongly calculated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78986 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
                                            3/4




          under the head of petitioner’s asset. It is further submitted that

          the investigation has come to a close and charge-sheet has been

          submitted on 10.10.2025 while the petitioner is in custody since

          13.08.2025 with no criminal antecedent. Learned senior counsel

          has also submitted that there are several witnesses to be

          examined and several documents to be exhibited on behalf of

          the SVU as is demonstrated by the charge-sheet itself leading to

          the fact that there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial

          even after its commences in the near future. The case of Sanjay

          Chandra Vs. C.B.I. has been relied upon to contend that once

          the Investigating Agency has already completed investigation,

          their custody would not be required any further.

                       5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the SVU has

          opposed the application for bail by way of filing of a counter

          affidavit on the ground that there is substantial material against

          the petitioner showing huge disproportionate assets and further

          that the petitioner did not cooperate during the investigation and

          he only surrendered after coercive processes under Section 82 of

          the Cr.P.C. was initiated against him.

                           6. Taking into consideration the facts and

          circumstances and also not loosing sight of the fact that the

          petitioner is in custody for the past six months and charge-sheet
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78986 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
                                                         4/4




                       has already been submitted, no useful purpose would be served

                       by keeping the petitioner behind bars as held in the case of

                       Sanjay Chandra (supra) and further considering that the

                       petitioner continues to remain in the constructive custody of the

                       court to be in attendance whenever his presence is required, let

                       the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing

                       bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two

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

                       court below where the case is pending/successor court in

                       connection with Special Case No. 06 of 2025 arising out of

                       S.V.U. P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, subject to the conditions that

                       the petitioner shall appear on each and every date till conclusion

                       of trial and if the petitioner does not appear on two consecutive

                       dates without any substantial and satisfactory reason, the

                       learned court concerned and the S.V.U. would be at liberty to

                       take steps towards cancellation of his bail bonds.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-

U      T