Umesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2026

    0
    11
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Patna High Court – Orders

    Umesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2026

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31315 of 2026
                             Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2025 Thana- EKMA District- Saran
                     ======================================================
                     Umesh Kumar Singh S/o- Mahesh Prasad Singh R/v- Hansrajpur,P.S. - Ekma,
                     Dist- Saran
    
                                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                           Versus
               1.    The State of Bihar
               2.    The Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna Bihar
    
                                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
                     ======================================================
                     Appearance :
                     For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
                     For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
                     For the Vigilance        :       Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl.P.P.
                                              :       Mr. Paritosh Parimal, Advocate
                     ======================================================
                     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
                                           ORAL ORDER
    
    3   15-07-2026

    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

    learned counsel for the Vigilance and the learned APP for the

    SPONSORED

    State.

    2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in

    connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 345 of 2025, for allegedly

    having committed offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471

    and 120(B) of the IPC.

    3. As per the prosecution story, which has been

    lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the

    Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation

    Bureau, Patna addressed to the S.H.O., Ekma Police Statoin to

    the effect that in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Patna
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31315 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026
    2/7

    High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15459 of 2014, the educational

    certificate of teachers were being examined and during course of

    examination of the documents of the petitioner, which was

    provided by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) at

    Saran, it was found that the petitioner was employed as a

    Teacher in 2006 and is posted at Primary School, Mathanpura. It

    was further alleged that the appointment of the petitioner was

    made on the basis of his testimonials and teachers training

    marks. The teachers training mark-sheet/certificate of the

    petitioner was sent for verification of its genuineness before the

    Secretary/Examination Controller, Office of Registrar,

    Departmental Examination, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad by the

    Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna vide letter no. 5675

    dated 14.05.2025. Upon information provided by the Registrar,

    Departmental Examination, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, the said

    certificate was found to be forged and fabricated.

    4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

    that on the basis of the said verification, the present first

    information report was lodged. He submits that the petitioner

    was appointed as a teacher in the year 2006, after verification of

    all his testimonials/documents and till date, no doubt was ever

    raised with regard to genuineness of his documents, which was
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31315 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026
    3/7

    submitted by him at the time of his appointment. He further

    submits that all of a sudden, the first information report was

    lodged and before that, no notice or show cause was given to

    the petitioner to the effect that his basic training certificate has

    been found to be fake, which is in complete violation of the

    principles of natural justice. He further submits that the first

    information report has been lodged without even hearing the

    petitioner and his certificate has been declared to be forged and

    fabricated, without the petitioner being afforded any

    opportunity. He further submits that the petitioner seriously

    disputes the report submitted by the Examination Department of

    Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad with regard to his certificate being

    found to be forged and fabricated. He further submits that in the

    report, which has been submitted by the Secretary, Examination

    Regulation Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, the name of six

    persons are there, whose certificates have been found to be

    forged and fabricated. He further submits that at serial no.1, the

    name of Nimal Kumari @ Nilam Kumari is there, whose

    certificate was also found to be forged and first information

    report was lodged against her. She filed anticipatory bail petition

    before this Hon’ble Court bearing Cr. Misc. No. 10729 of 2026

    and the same was heard and allowed vide order dated
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31315 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026
    4/7

    24.02.2026 passed by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble

    Court. He further submits that one Kumari Soni, who name

    appears at serial no.5 along with the petitioner, whose certificate

    has been found to be forged, also filed anticipatory bail petition

    before this Hon’ble Court bearing Cr. Misc. No. 32043 of 2026.

    The said anticipatory bail petition has been allowed by a

    Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated

    13.05.2026. He further submits that one Ranjana Kumari, whose

    name is mentioned at serial no. 6, along with the petitioner in

    the report of the Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, whereby

    the certificate of petitioner and 6 others were found to be forged.

    The said Ranjana Kumari filed anticipatory bail petition before

    this Hon’ble Court bearing Cr. Misc. No. 14863 of 2026 and the

    same was allowed by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble

    Court vide order dated 29.04.2026. He further submits that since

    similarly situated persons have been granted the privilege of

    anticipatory bail, the petitioner also deserves the same parity.

    He further submits that the petitioner has got a clean antecedent.

    5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Vigilance

    Investigation Bureau submits that the certificate of the petitioner

    and five other persons were found to be forged and the same has

    been communicated vide letter no. 806 dated 08.01.2025, issued
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31315 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026
    5/7

    under the signature of the Registrar, Examination Regulatory

    Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj and on the basis of same,

    first information report has been lodged. He further submits

    that pursuant to order passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C.

    No. 15459 of 2014 (PIL), the certificates of petitioner and others

    teacher, who were appointed in between 2006 to 2015 were

    being verified. He further submits that during verification, the

    certificate of the petitioner was found to be forged and

    fabricated. He further submits that similarly situated teachers

    filed bail petition before this Hon’ble Court and the same was

    rejected vide order dated 27.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

    58684 of 2023 and against the said order SLP (Crl.) No. 6560 of

    2024 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The

    same was rejected vide order dated 25.07.2024. He further

    submits that one Soni Kumar filed anticipatory bail petition

    before this Hon’ble Court bearing Cr. Misc. No. 63847 of 2025

    and vide order dated 01.12.2025, the same was rejected and was

    affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (Crl.)

    No. 270 of 2026 vide order dated 16.03.2026. He further

    submits that the petitioner was appointed on a forged document

    and therefore, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory

    bail.

    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31315 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026
    6/7

    6. The learned APP for the State vehemently

    opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

    7. Having heard the rival submissions and after going

    through the records, it appears that despite opportunity granted

    by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court to such teachers to

    resign on their own, who were appointed on the basis of forged

    documents, the petitioner choose not to resign and he continued

    to draw the monetary benefits as a teacher. The allegation

    against the petitioner appears to be serious in nature and he did

    not resign on his own, despite opportunity granted to him by the

    virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench and he

    continued to draw the monetary benefits as a Block/Panchayat

    Teacher. Now, in 2025 it has been found that his educational

    qualification was forged. Further a learned Co-ordinate bench

    vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 78970 of

    2023 (Sanjeev Kumar Raman vs. The State of Bihar) has

    rejected the Anticipatory Bail petition. Similar view was taken

    by a learned Co-ordinate bench vide order dated 27.02.2024

    passed in Cr. Misc. No. 58684 of 2023 (Punita Devi vs. The

    State of Bihar & Ors.). The order dated 27.02.2024 has been

    affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.)

    No. 6560 of 2024 vide order dated 25.07.2024. So far the orders
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31315 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026
    7/7

    relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 32043 of 2026,

    Cr. Misc. No. 14863 of 2026 and Cr. Misc. No. 10729 of 2026

    are concerned, this Court finds that while granting the privilege

    of anticipatory bail, the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

    Court of India, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

    was pleased to affirm the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court,

    whereby the anticipatory bail petition/regular bail petition of the

    petitioners were rejected, were not brought to the notice of the

    Hon’ble Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and therefore, the

    petitioner cannot be allowed parity in terms of the orders

    referred to above. Considering the facts and circumstances of

    the case, the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner is

    rejected.

    (Ritesh Kumar, J)
    AjayMishra/-

    U      T
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here