Patna High Court
CR. MISC./49807/2026 of Rohit kumar @ Rohit Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar on 29 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49807 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2019 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rohit kumar @ Rohit Kumar Paswan Son of Bachchan Ram Resident of village - Dhanauji,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49807 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2019 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran ======================================================
Rohit kumar @ Rohit Kumar Paswan Son of Bachchan Ram Resident of village - Dhanauji, Hathiaul Ward no. 8, Ps- Pakaridayal, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Hemant Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
29-07-2026
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 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean and the informant alleges that he oversees all consumers service point within the district of East Champaran of SBI and he came to know that Bachcha Ram manager of Consumer Service Point Harnatha has defalcated huge amount of money of consumers and consumers have given complaint in writing that they have not withdrawn the money, but the money stands withdrawn from the account while some Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49807 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026
consumers complained that they have receipt of deposit, but the money was not deposited in their account, thus it is alleged that Bachcha Ram along with his son i.e. petitioner and Abhimanyu defalcated the investment of poor people.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case being son of Bachcha Ram, it is next submitted that Bachcha Ram has been granted the privilege of regular bail by an order dated 09.12.2020 in Cri Misc. No. 31456 of 2020, as such, it is submitted that the no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that the case is of the year 2019 and from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned District Court in the year 2019 itself, but then petitioner for reason best known neither surrendered nor approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, it is further submitted that no doubt Bachcha Ram has been granted the privilege of regular bail, but then his bail was considered based on the fact that he remained in judicial custody for more than a year, it is also submitted that it Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49807 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026
appears that the petitioner is moving at his leisure.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. This application stands rejected.
nitesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T