IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24017 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2026 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Nitesh Kumar S/o Ranjan Ray @ Shivnarayan Ray R/o Babhan Toli(Rasulpur, Korigaon), P.S. - Goroul, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Subhash Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Vaishali Police Station Case No. 97 of 2026, dated 08.02.2026, disclosing offences under Sections 319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/3(5) and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Control Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, on the letter of informant an FIR was lodged, stating therein that on 08.02.2026, during the CTET Examination (Second Shift) held at Dharamshila Vidyapeeth Examination Centre, that a candidate appearing in Room No. 17 was suspected during verification. Upon biometric verification and further enquiry, it was revealed that one Naveen Kumar Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24017 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/2 was impersonating the actual candidate Nitesh Kumar i.e. the petitioner having Roll No. 125204096 and was appearing in the examination on his behalf. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and is a bonafide candidate of CTET having Roll No. 125204096, but he was absent on the date of examination and had no knowledge that Naveen Kumar, who had the admit card of the petitioner, would appear in the examination on his behalf. He next submits that petitioner, having no criminal antecedent, is a student with bright career ahead. 5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and seriousness of offence and the fact that co- accused Naveen Kumar was impersonating the petitioner at his behest and committed cheating in connivance with him, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. ashwani/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T