Patna High Court
Kanhaiya KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Kanhaiya Kumar, a holder of a K‑License for minor minerals, was implicated in a case alleging that 10,000 MT of stone was added to his ID without his knowledge, leading to an FIR under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. He claimed he had promptly reported the discrepancy to mining authorities and the police, but his representations were ignored and the FIR was filed before his reply to a show‑cause notice, violating natural justice. The State and the Mines Department opposed his anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations involved forged documents and a serious economic offence. The Court observed that the petitioner had not used the alleged quantity, there was no loss of revenue, and no material suggested a danger of justice being thwarted, thereby finding a prima facie case for bail. Relying on the guidelines in Sushila Aggarwal v. State, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, while reserving the right to cancel it if the petitioner concealed any criminal history.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the allegations of mineral theft and alleged procedural violations.
- Whether the FIR and the proceedings violate the principles of natural justice given the petitioner’s prior representations.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(1), 340(2), 341(1), 3(5), 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- economic offence
- mineral theft
- natural justice
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1933 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2025 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Kanhaiya Kumar S/o Radhe Sharma R/o Village - Nimi, P.S - Shekhopur
Sarai, District - Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Sheikhpura Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Samdarshi, Adv.
Mr.Avinash Shekhar, Adv.
Ms.Simran Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
For the Mines Dept. : Mr.Naresh Dikshit, Spl.P.P.
Ms.Shruti Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and learned
counsel for the Mines Department.
2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner after rejection
of his anticipatory bail application by order dated 04.12.2025
passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Sheikhpura, seeking Anticipatory Bail in connection with
Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.312 of 2025 dated 21.10.2025,
registered for the offence punishable u/s 319(2), 318(4), 303(2),
338, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2), 341(1), 3(5) and 340(1) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1933 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/6
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Rule 56 of the Bihar Minerals
(Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2019, District-Sheikhpura.
3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated
are that the petitioner is holder of K License
No.K/Sheikhpura/69/2025 and ID No.3334500301 in the district
of Sheikhpura for stocking minor mineral. The main allegation
against him is that 10,000 MT capping was added on his ID
whereby 10,000 MT stone was shown to be deposited at his K-
license site.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued
that as soon as petitioner came to know that additional capping
of 10000 MT of stones is being reflected on his ID, he
immediately made a complaint in the form of his representation
dated 12.09.2025 to the Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals,
Sheikhpura but no action has been taken on his complaint. Then
he made another representation dated 21.10.2025 to the Station
House Officer, Cyber Police Station, Sheikhpura, which was
also not considered. Thereafter, Assistant Director, District
Mines Office, Sheikhpura, issued a letter / show-cause notice
dated 07.11.2025 to the petitioner asking his explanation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1933 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/6
regarding the said issue, which was replied by the petitioner
vide his letter dated 13.11.2025 mentioning inter-alia that
despite the transaction were shown on his ID, the same was not
done by him and he is not aware of any physical movement of
mineral to his K-license site. In the reply, it is also mentioned
that he has not used the said 10000 MT quantity added in his ID.
It is also submitted that the F.I.R. against the petitioner has been
lodged on 21.10.2025 without deciding his representation dated
12.09.2025. Much emphasis has been given by contending that
since the petitioner has not used the added 10000 MT stone,
hence, he cannot be said to be the beneficiary and it appears that
same has been done by someone in order to cause irreparable
loss and injury to the petitioner with ulterior motive. Petitioner
has no criminal history to his credit. Averment in this regard has
been mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the affidavit. Pursuant to
F.I.R. of this case, the petitioner has apprehension of imminent
arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case the petitioner is granted
anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and cooperate
with the trial of this case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the
State as well as learned counsel for the Mines Department
opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1933 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/6
petitioner in the light of the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is
submitted that petitioner has deliberately added 10000 MT of
minor minerals on his ID through forged/blurred documents.
Thus, the allegation relates to economic offence involving
mineral theft/robbery digital manipulation of Government
portal. They also submit that as on date there is no material on
record to presume the false implication of the petitioner.
Considering the prosecution case, cognizable offence is made
out against the petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find
that, it is not in dispute that representation of the petitioner as
noted above has not been decided by the authority concerned. It
is also not in dispute that it was the petitioner who first time
himself brought the issue in question to the notice of the
authorities concerned but they did not take pain to decide his
representations and even the F.I.R. was lodged prior to
submitting reply of the show-cause notice by the petitioner.,
which is violative of principle of Natural Justice. It is also not in
dispute that the petitioner has not used the aforesaid added
quantity of stones. Hence, there is no loss of revenue of the
State. As on date there is no material on record to presume that
there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1933 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/6
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted
above, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the petitioner, taking
into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation
and there being no possibility of his fleeing away from justice,
this Court is of the view that in the light of guidelines laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs
State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, prima facie the
petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest or
surrender of the petitioner above-named within two weeks from
today in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory
bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below in connection
with the aforesaid case, subject to conditions laid down under
Section 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this
anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. In case, at any stage it is found that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal history before this Court, learned Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1933 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
6/6
below shall be at the liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the he has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
11. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited
to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail
application and will not effect the merits of the case.
(Sanjay Kumar Singh , J)
pallavi/-
U T
Checking your session…