Patna High Court
Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The High Court set aside the lower court’s refusal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Summary
Manish Kumar appealed against the Exclusive Special Judge's order rejecting his anticipatory bail in a case registered under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that Kumar was involved in a dispute over a land sale where a sum of Rs.2,91,000 was paid to Smt. Shakuntala Devi, who allegedly refused to execute the sale deed. The appellant contended that the matter was purely civil, that he was falsely implicated because of his familial relationship with the complainant, and that no specific offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out. The State and the second respondent argued that the FIR contained direct allegations against the appellant and material supporting a charge under the SC/ST Act. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and directed that Kumar be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a criminal offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or are merely a civil dispute.
- Whether the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents and willingness to cooperate justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil dispute
- false implication
- SC/ST Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court appeal
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.401 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2025 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Manish Kumar S/o Shankar Prasad R/o Village - Purani Bazar, P.S - Paliganj,
District - Patna, At present R/o Village - Kinjar, P.S - Kinjar, District - Arwal
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suresh Chaudhary S/o Shaligram Singh Chaudhary @ Shaligram Chaudhary
R/o Village - Purani Bazar Paliganj, P.S - Paliganj, District - Patna,
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Niranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Randheer Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Kunwar Narayan Jamuar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the respondent no.2.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the
order dated 7.1.2026 passed in A.B.P. no.1738 of 2025 by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Civil Court (Sadar),
Patna and for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with
Paliganj P.S. Case no.48 of 2025 registered under sections 316(2)
and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that
he had given a total sum of Rs.2,91,000/- to Smt. Shakuntala
Devi @ Chinta Devi, however the registry of the land could not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.401 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
take place as the link failed in the Office of the Registrar. Since
then, on one pretext or the other of her son Shankar Prasad, she is
not ready to execute the registered sale deed. They reside in the
kirana shop of Manish Kumar.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from
the allegations in the F.I.R. it would be evident that he dispute, if
any, is purely civil in nature and so far as the appellant is
concerned, he has been falsely implicated in the case for the
reason that he happens to be the grandson of Smt. Shakuntala
Devi. No allegation under the SC and ST (PoA) Act is made
about against any of the accused including the appellant herein.
The appellant has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to
cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The appeal is opposed by learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent
no.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.2
that there is direct allegation against the appellant and others in
the F.I.R. and substantial material has transpired in course of
investigation to substantiate the case under the SC and ST (PoA)
Act.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations against the appellant in
the F.I.R., the Court is inclined to allow the instant appeal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.401 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
7. The appeal is allowed and the order dated 7.1.2026
passed in A.B.P. no.1738 of 2025 by the learned Exclusive
Special Judge, SC/ST, Civil Court (Sadar), Patna rejecting the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant is hereby set aside.
8. It is directed that the appellant above named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court
below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory
bail in connection with Paliganj P.S. Case no.48 of 2025 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Civil Court (Sadar),
Patna.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U T
Checking your session…