Patna High Court
Shankar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Since the petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is no apprehension of arrest, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Jha, owner of a transport company, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case involving the alleged theft of a tanker carrying rice bran oil. The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act, but the petitioner was not named in the FIR and had only provided logistical support. The petitioner argued that he had no ownership or control over the tanker or driver and therefore bore no criminal liability. The State contended that the petitioner’s involvement was not evident in the case diary. The Court observed that there was no apprehension of arrest and the petitioner’s name was absent from the FIR, rendering the anticipatory bail application non‑maintainable. Consequently, the application was disposed of, with liberty to approach the Sessions Court if arrest becomes imminent.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is liable for the offences alleged under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act.
- Whether the anticipatory bail application is maintainable in the absence of the petitioner’s name in the FIR and without apprehension of arrest.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- transport company
- FIR
- criminal liability
- Bihar Negotiable Substances Act
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12689 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-399 Year-2024 Thana- DURGAWATI District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Shankar Jha S/o Dwarika Nath Jha Resident of B Block, Santoshpur Govt
Colony, P.S.- Maheshtala (M), South 24 Parganas, West Bengal -PIN 700142.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Asif Iqbal
For the State : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 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 Durgawati Police Station Case No. 399 of 2024,
disclosing offences under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 316(2),
316(5) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, who
is the Manager of Yash Lakshmi Solvent Pvt. Ltd., had booked a
vehicle from the transporter, M/s Anjali Enterprises. A tanker
bearing Registration No. NL04D-7985 was provided by the
transport company, on which 33.600 tons of rice bran oil was
loaded on 16.12.2024 for transportation to Vaibhav Edible Oil,
Kanpur, under Bilti No. 31/24/25. However, on 20.12.2024 at
around 12:00 PM, the informant received a phone call from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12689 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
owner of the tanker stating that the driver has abandoned the
tanker near Chakand, Gaya, and that the tanker was found
empty.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
is not named in the FIR and is merely the owner of M/S Anjali
Enterprises, a transport company from which the tanker was
arranged for transportation of the consignment in question. The
owner of the tanker has also lodged an FIR, being Chakand P.S.
Case No. 344 of 2024. The petitioner is neither the owner of the
vehicle nor was the driver of the tanker provided by the
petitioner’s transport company. The petitioner’s role was limited
to providing logistical support. The entire consignment was
entrusted to the tanker owner and the driver; therefore, no
criminal liability can be attributed to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State
submits that from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that
the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua had observed
that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is no
mention of his involvement in the case diary, available on
record.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12689 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that
the prosecution has submitted that since the petitioner’s name
and involvement is not apparent and he has no apprehension of
arrest at this stage, this application is disposed of as not
maintainable at present with liberty to the petitioner to approach
the Court of Sessions again if there is any apprehension of arrest
in future.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…