Patna High Court
Surendra SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners as the allegations were specific and serious.
Summary
The petitioners, Surendra Sharma and Mithilesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly facilitating a payment of Rs. 3,00,000 to secure a railway job for an informant. They contended that they were innocent, that the informant himself paid the amount unlawfully, and that they have clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the FIR specifically accuses the petitioners of inducing the other accused to cheat the informant. The court examined the specific and direct nature of the accusations and the seriousness of the offences. Considering the facts, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, concluding that the petitioners could not be granted relief at this stage.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners accused under Sections 420, 406 and 34 IPC given the specific allegations in the FIR
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 420
- Section 406
- Section 34
- cheating
- criminal conspiracy
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2032 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2014 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Surendra Sharma Son of Narayan Sharma R/o Village - Bela Nawada, P.S. -
Masraha, District - Khagaria.
2. Mithilesh Kumar Son of Surendra Sharma R/o Village - Bela Nawada, P.S. -
Masraha, District - Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Santosh Kumar Son of Ramanand Mahto R/o Village -Mushharlochanpur,
P.S. - Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Md. Fahimuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on the
persuasion and inducement of these petitioners, informant paid
Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused persons to get his wife a job in the
railways.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2032 of 2026(3) dt.17-02-2026
2/2
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. As a matter of fact, the informant
himself paid the amount to a secure government job, which
itself is unlawful and he cannot claim to have been cheated.
Petitioners claim 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 petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. with specific accusation that being induced by these
petitioners, the other accused persons, took Rs. 3,00,000/- from
the informant in lieu of providing job in the railways and thus,
cheated him.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and specific and direct nature of accusation, the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…