Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Hari Shankar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court denied pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Hari Shankar Prasad, sought pre‑arrest bail after the police registered a case (Manjhi P.S. Case No. 277 of 2025) alleging his involvement in a conspiracy to illegally mutate land records. The petition alleges that the petitioner filed a mutation application based on a forged sale deed, resulting in the illegal addition of a khata number to survey 4757. The State and the informant opposed the bail, contending that the petitioner was implicated in offences punishable under Sections 338, 336(3) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner argued that he was innocent and only a suspect. After hearing both sides, the Court found the allegations sufficient to deny the bail request. Consequently, the petition for pre‑arrest bail was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail in view of the alleged conspiracy and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • pre‑arrest bail
  • land mutation fraud
  • conspiracy
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1018 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2025 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Hari Shankar Prasad Son of Late Ambika Prasad R/o Village - Manjhi
                 Miyapatti, P.S. - Manjhi, District - Saran at Chapra.

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Avinash Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Addl. Public Prosecutor
                 For the Informant        :        Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate
                                                   Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   21-01-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant

                   and the State.

                                 2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

                   Manjhi P.S. Case No. 277 of 2025 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 338, 336(3) and 318(4) of Bharatiya

                   Nyaya Sanhita.

                                 3. It is alleged that this petitioner, in conspiracy, filed

                   mutation case no. 3392R-27/19-20 on the basis of his sale deed

                   document no. 1168 dated 29.12.20217 and illegally got mutated

                   survey no. 4757 in his name by adding khata no. 144 in front of

                   the survey no. 4757 in the computer data. During inquiry, the

                   aforesaid illegality was also highlighted by the Circle Officer,

                   Manjhi and SHO, Manjhi issued letter no. 1320 dated 5.8.2024
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1018 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
                                                          2/2




                        for taking appropriate legal action in this regard.

                                     4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                        petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner

                        has been made accused in this case only on suspicion.

                                     5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for

                        the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

                                     6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                        of the case, prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is rejected.



                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.