Allowed

Nibha Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Jul 2026CR. MISC./42688/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a vigilance FIR alleging she obtained employment as a teacher using a forged marksheet. The court noted her clean antecedents and that she is a woman, and granted anticipatory bail subject to BNSS conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail on furnishing Rs. 10,000 bail bond with two sureties of like amount within six weeks, subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions.

Nibha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42688 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2026 Thana- SONO District- Jamui

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Nibha Kumari W/O Late Suresh Singh, D/O Ramnaresh Singh Resident of village- Kewali, PS- Sono, Distt.- Jamui

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Inspector cum Inquiry Officer of Vigilance, Investigation, Bureau, 6 Circular Road,Patna Post- G.P.O., P.S.- Rajbanshinagar, Dist.- Patna- 800001

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. PP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 09-07-2026

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned Spl. PP for the Vigilance, Sri

¶14

Arvind Kumar.

¶15

2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the informant alleges that petitioner was appointed as teacher based on forged marksheet.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42688 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026 2/2

¶19

informant. It is next submitted that prior to institution of the instant FIR, no show-cause notice was given to the petitioner to explain her side of the case, it is further submitted that had a show-cause been issued to the petitioner, perhaps the instant FIR would not have been instituted. It is also submitted that DPO has already directed for terminating the services of the petitioner.

¶20

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶21

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her 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 with Sono P.S. Case No. 62 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

¶22

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶23

Sumit/-

¶24

U T

Nibha Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nibha Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Kumar Burnwal Vs The State of Bihar

Chhatri Yadav @ Kshatriya Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Pratima Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjit Chaudhary @ Ranjit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajo Devi Vs The State of Bihar