Dismissed¶¶18

Rajeev Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Feb 2026CR. MISC./81597/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Cr. Misc. No.81597 of 2025(5), decided 20-02-2026 by Ramesh Chand Malviya, J. Rajeev Kumar v. The State of Bihar: anticipatory bail application rejected. FIR Mahanar P.S. Case No. 201 of 2025 (District Vaishali) under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, based on written report of Dr. Alka Kumari, alleging procurement of a forged employment letter; department found the letter forged; investigation ongoing. Court found allegations serious and petitioner involved; bail declined. Counsel: Sanket for petitioner; Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP for the State.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged commission of offence, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. ¶¶17

Rajeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81597 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2025 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali

¶3

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

¶4

Rajeev Kumar, aged about 42 years, Male, Son of Ramakant Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Ram Ajgara, P.O- Samaya No – 5, Bhadaur, Patna, Bihar.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanket, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ======================================================

¶6

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER

¶7

5 20-02-2026

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶9

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahanar P.S. Case No. 201 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner obtained forged employment letter on the basis of forgery.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the dispute is purely documentary in nature. He further submits that the petitioner has neither fabricated the documents nor misrepresented the facts. He next submits that the petitioner has not forged any document and the

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81597 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026 2/3

¶13

same was communicated from the department to the local district authority and the petitioner has no role to the same. He lastly submits that the authorities have made allegation of document being forced by the petitioner is based on conjectures and surmises. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition.

¶14

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶15

From perusal of the FIR, case diary and also perused the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Vaishali at Hajipur, it appears that on the basis of written report of the Medical Officere, namely Dr. Alka Kumari, FIR has been registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner, Rajeev Kumar and the allegation is for obtaining employment letter on the basis of forgery. After due enquiry, the concerned department found the employment letter to be forged. Investigation is going on and the allegation under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is so serious against the present petitioner, so, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81597 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026 3/3

¶17

involvement of the petitioner in the alleged commission of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18