Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the petition.

Summary

Manish Kumar applied for anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case registered under Section 140(3) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleges that he orchestrated the theft of 350‑400 grams of gold jewellery and cash from the victim’s locker, using a professional locksmith, and that he defrauded the victim by returning only Rs. 4,10,500. The petitioner contended that he is innocent, not named in the FIR, and has a clean record, also highlighting the victim’s gender dysphonia and personal circumstances. The State opposed the bail, presenting statements recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. indicating the petitioner’s involvement. After considering the investigation material and the seriousness of the allegations, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Section 140(3) of the B.N.S. given the alleged theft and fraud.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • theft
  • fraud
  • Section 140(3)
  • Section 183
  • criminal procedure
  • Bihar

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19651 of 2026

                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2025 Thana- JOGSAR District- Bhagalpur
                 ======================================================
                 Manish Kumar S/o Bhola Mandal Resident of Village- Urdu Bazar Road,
                 Ramsar Chowk, P.S.- Tatarpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :        Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section 140(3) of the

                   B.N.S..

                                3. As per prosecution case, informant alleges that his

                   younger brother went missing and on search, he came to know

                   that he fled away taking gold ornaments and cash from the

                   house.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19651 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                            2/3




          committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. As a

          matter of fact, the victim was patient of Gender Dysphonia and

          he himself approached the hospital for sex change surgery.

          Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

                       5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

          the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner transpired in

          this case during investigation and it has come that this petitioner

          orchestrated the theft of approximately 350-400 grams of gold

          jewellery and cash from the family locker of the victim. The

          victim alleges that this petitioner brought a professional

          locksmith to break the locker of the victim’s house in absence of

          his family member. The victim in his statement recorded under

          Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. has stated that though the gold was

          worth a substantial amount, this petitioner only gave Rs.

          4,10,500/- to the victim and thus, committed financial fraud. He

          has further stated that this petitioner isolated him from his

          family, took advantage of his mental state and facilitated his

          disappearance.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, materials that have surfaced during investigation and
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19651 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

                       the petitioner is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.