Patna High Court
Piyush Ranjan Mishra @ Piyush Ranjan @ Pinku MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application for all petitioners, subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, three residents of Mahishi, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning alleged theft of temple offerings. They claimed the allegations were false, stemming from a dispute with the informant who was the Secretary of the Ugratara Temple Trust, and that police investigations had exonerated them. The petitioners highlighted that petitioner No.1 had prior cases but had been acquitted in each, while petitioners No.2 and No.3 had clean records. The State opposed the bail, contending that petitioner No.1 had five prior criminal cases. The High Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail to all three petitioners subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of petitioner No.1's antecedents under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC.
- Whether prior criminal antecedents of petitioner No.1 bar the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the police’s exoneration and prior acquittals of petitioner No.1 affect the bail decision.
- Whether conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the CrPC are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- IPC 34
- temple trust dispute
- false implication
- prior criminal antecedent
- Section 482 CrPC
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15939 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2024 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Piyush Ranjan Mishra @ Piyush Ranjan @ Pinku Mishra Son of Late
Phuleshwar Mishra @ Late Phulkant Jha R/o Village - Mahishi, P.S. -
Mahishi, District - Saharasa.
2. Manik Chandra Jha Son of Late Jai Naryan Jha R/o Village - Mahishi, P.S. -
Mahishi, District - Saharasa.
3. Sachidanand Jha @ Kanhaiya Jha Son of Bhogendra Jha R/o Village -
Mahishi, P.S. - Mahishi, District - Saharasa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha
Mr.Uday Shankar Choudhary
Mr.Adarsh
Mr.Manoj Kumar
Mr.Amitesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of one case and petitioner
nos.2 and 3 are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15939 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
2/6
alleges that he is Secretary of Ugratara Temple Trust Committee
constituted by the Bihar State Religious Trust Board. It is next
alleged that informant was entrusted with the work of temple for
five years which included entire management, security and
development of the temple. Further, the new committee i.e. of
the informant was formed after the tenure of the earlier
committee came to an end of which Piyush Ranjan Mishra was
the Secretary and Manik Chandra Jha was the Treasurer. It is
next alleged that the old committee refused to hand over charge
and accounts. Accordingly, the Ex-officio Chairman of the Trust
i.e. District Magistrate was requested to intervene, accordingly,
in presence of the DCLR the lock of the committee was broken,
since Piyush, who is husband of Mukhiya, was refusing to give
charge. Accordingly, Mahishi P. S. Case No. 128 of 2023 was
instituted against Piyush in which he is on bail. It is next alleged
that after taking charge it transpired that offering given by
devotees is missing as detailed in the FIR which also included
gold ornaments.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15939 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
3/6
dispute in between the informant and the petitioner no.1. It is
next submitted that no doubt, it is alleged that petitioner no.1
was not giving charge of the committee to the new committee of
which the informant was the Secretary, but then the litigation
was pending. It is also submitted that allegation of theft is an
exaggerated allegation as police after threadbare investigation
came to a considered conclusion that petitioners are innocent
and thus submitted final form, but then the learned trial Court
differing with the police report took cognizance based on which
petitioners apprehend arrest. It is also submitted that one
investigating agency after threadbare investigation came to a
considered conclusion that petitioners are innocent whether it
would be prudent for the Court to send the petitioners to jail
based on an order of cognizance which came to be taken based
on the same police report which had exonerated the petitioners
of the allegations.
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application, but then, are not in a position to rebut the
submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners that police after investigation submitted final form.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15939 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
4/6
submits that petitioner no.1 had not approached the Court with
clean hands. It is submitted that at Para-3, it has been pleaded
that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of one case when he has
antecedent of five cases i.e. Mahishi P. S. Case No.39 of 2003,
Mahishi P. S. Case No. 19 of 2025, Mahishi P. S. Case No. 104
of 2011, Mahishi P. S. Case No. 100 of 2014 and Complaint
Case No.24 of 2022.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not
rebut the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant, but then submits that in all the aforesaid
cases i.e. Mahishi P. S. Case No.39 of 2003, Mahishi P. S. Case
No. 19 of 2025, Mahishi P. S. Case No. 104 of 2011, Mahishi P.
S. Case No. 100 of 2014, the petitioner no.1 has been acquitted,
since petitioner no.1 was acquitted in all those cases, as such, at
Para-22 of the anticipatory bail application, it was pleaded that
petitioner no.1 was accused in some cases but was acquitted. It
is also submitted that if it is found that petitioner no.1 was not
acquitted in any one of the police cases as recorded herein
above, in that event, his bail bonds shall not be accepted. It is
also submitted that as far as Complaint Case No.24 of 2022 is
concerned, the petitioner no.1 is not aware of the said case as he
never received any summons.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15939 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
5/6
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner nos.2 and 3, above-named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks, are directed to be released on anticipatory
bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Mahishi
P. S. Case No.263 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. The application stands allowed.
9. As far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, petitioner
no.1, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before
the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed
to be released on provisional bail anticipatory bail on his
furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Mahishi P. S. Case
No.263 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
10. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15939 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
6/6
11. The learned trial Court shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.1 and if it is found that
petitioner no.1 was not acquitted in any one of the four police
cases as recorded herein above, in that event, the provisional
anticipatory bail bonds shall be cancelled forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…