Patna High Court
Satyanarayan MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that, having no evidential link to the alleged manufacturing of adulterated fertilizer and possessing a clean antecedent, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Summary
Satyanarayan Mandal applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging his involvement in the illegal manufacturing of adulterated potash fertilizer. The prosecution alleged that the godown where the fertilizer was seized was rented to the petitioner, based on a rental agreement presented by a local resident. The petitioner contended that the agreement was fabricated, he is a labourer with no connection to the accused landowner, and he has a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, but the court found the petitioner falsely implicated and lacking any evidential link to the offence. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be arrested under the FIR alleging involvement in adulterated fertilizer manufacturing
- Whether anticipatory bail is appropriate under Section 438 CrPC given the facts
- Whether the alleged rental agreement constitutes sufficient evidence to deny bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 3(5)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- adulterated fertilizer
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- section 438 CrPC
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11466 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-619 Year-2024 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Satyanarayan Mandal S/O Pujanand Mandal R/O Village- Bhattabari,
Maliyari, Ward No. 13, P.S- Forbesganj, Distt.- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No.619 of 2024, F.I.R
dated 06.10.2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 06.10.2024
submitted by Anuj Nirala, Agricultural Coordinator-cum-
Fertilizer Inspector, an FIR was lodged alleging that adulterated
Potash fertilizer was being illegally manufactured in a godown
situated near Kotihat river under Matiyari Panchayat,
Forbesganj. Acting on secret information received at about 3:00
A.M., the officials conducted a raid and, after breaking open the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11466 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
lock of the godown, allegedly found materials used for
preparing adulterated fertilizer. In the presence of agriculture
and police officials, they seized adulterated fertilizer, empty
bags, a sewing machine, weighing scale (Taraju), red oxide,
spade, and empty salt bags, and the seized fertilizer was sent for
laboratory examination. A seizure list was also prepared. It is
further alleged that at about 11:00 A.M. on the same day, a local
resident, Goutam Kumar Choudhary, produced a rental
agreement, which allegedly showed that the godown had been
rented by the landowner, Sheela Devi, to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to
the contents of the F.I.R., submits that the agreement which
forms the basis for implicating this petitioner, ought to have
been produced by the land owners, namely, Sheela Devi and
there was no occasion for such an agreement presented by
Goutam Kumar Choudhary, who is purportedly said to be a
witness of the said agreement, as per the allegation. It has next
been submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with
the alleged incident while the petitioner is a labourer and for
earning his livelihood, he renders his services in the locality and
is completely aware about the incident in question. It has further
been submitted that the petitioner has never met with the co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11466 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
accused Sheela Devi and for the purpose of providing a job, the
signature which is said to have been obtained on a blank paper
by Goutam Kumar Choudhary, seems to be have been misused
at his instance which would be evident from the contents of the
F.I.R. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has clean
antecedent and is ready to abide by the terms and conditions in
case the privilege of anticipatory bail is extended in their favour.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case
and has nothing to do with the manufacturing of adulterated
fertilizer and the petitioner has clean antecedent and has never
met the co-accused Sheela Devi. Accordingly, this Court is
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Araria, in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11466 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
Forbesganj P.S. Case No.619 of 2024, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…