Patna High Court
Sujeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to conditions, as the allegations do not warrant denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar, was implicated in a case (Mainatand P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025) for allegedly demanding Rs. 219‑250 per quintal from farmers, based on a viral audio clip. The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 316(5), 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S., while the petitioner contended that the audio was tampered with and no actual transaction occurred. The court noted that the audio was admitted to be altered and that there was no evidence of a completed demand or receipt of money. Despite a prior criminal antecedent, the court found that the allegations did not justify denial of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, subject to stringent conditions, and ordered that the bail bond be accepted without delay for verification.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case where the alleged offence is based on a possibly altered audio clip and no transaction has taken place?
- Do the allegations under Sections 316(5), 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S. constitute a ground to deny anticipatory bail?
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 316(2), 316(5), 318(4)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- audio evidence
- altered audio
- demand money
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 316 B.N.S.
- Section 318 B.N.S.
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1959 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2025 Thana- MAINATAND District- West Champaran
======================================================
Sujeet Kumar S/O Lalan Prasad @ Anant Singh R/O Village- Dhobni,
Panchayat- Sukhlahi, Police Station- Mainatand, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Shashi Shekhar Sinha. Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan ,A.P.P. for
the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Mainatand P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 316(5), 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
the petitioner is that he had demanded Rs. 219-250/- per quintal
from the brother of one Amit Kumar, who had originally made a
complaint on the basis of a viral audio.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that even if the allegations are taken on their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1959 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/4
face value, from the inquiry report it would be evident that only
allegation against the petitioner is that he had the intentions of
demanding Rs. 219-250/- per quintal from the farmers. It has
been submitted that the said Sumit Kumar has categorically
stated that till date he has not given the paddy. It has further
been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner
being the Chairman of the PACS has falsely been implicated
through an audio which again was admittedly found to be
altered as admitted by the person who had made it viral. It has
further been pointed out that the second part of demand of Rs.
80/- per quintal by way of commission by the petitioner and the
officials was found to be false. It has next been submitted that
even if all the allegations are taken to be true, the only offence
remains is that the petitioner was demanding money, however,
no transaction was taken place. It has lastly been submitted that
the petitioner carries one criminal antecedent in which police
has submitted final form.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail and has stated through the
counter affidavit that after enquiry it was found by the Three
Member Committee, the petitioner had the intention of
demanding Rs. 219-250/- per quintal from the farmers. It has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1959 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/4
further been submitted that pen drive along with a certificate has
also been produced before the police which goes on to certify
the truthfullness of such audio clip and therefore the petitioner
cannot take advantage out of the same.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances and taking into account the admitted fact that the
audio clip was altered and also the fact that no transaction has
taken place, let the petitioner above named be released on
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court below where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Mainatand P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of
B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1959 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/4
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below
shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…