Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Manish Sinha @ Manish Kumar @ Manisha KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.

Summary

Manish Sinha applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS No. 539 of 2025) involving alleged fraud and illegal detention of youths by a company promising jobs. The FIR alleged that the accused lured unemployed youths, collected money, confined them in overcrowded premises, and subjected them to torture. The petitioner feared arrest under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Patna High Court examined the seriousness of the offences and the evidence on record. Finding the nature and gravity of the alleged crimes to be substantial, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the application while noting that the order is limited to this application and does not prejudice future proceedings.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged offences.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • fraud
  • illegal detention
  • human trafficking
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21312 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-539 Year-2025 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Manish Sinha @ Manish Kumar @ Manisha Kumar S/O Jawahar Prasad @
                 Jawahar Singh Resident of Village- Karariya, P.S- Gopalganj, District-
                 Gopalganj.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Dr. Uma Shankar, Advocate
                                                 Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-05-2026                   Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

                   learned counsel for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

                   Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 539 of 2025 registered for offences

                   under Sections 127(2), 318(4), 143(3), 338, 336(3), 61(2) and

                   3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                 3. As per the FIR, the accused persons, associated

                   with “Otamics Company,” lured unemployed youths from

                   several states with false promises of jobs offering Rs. 30,000–

                   35,000 salaries, brought them to Motihari, and illegally

                   collected money from them in the name of agreements and other

                   charges; the victims were allegedly confined in rented premises

                   under the pretext of job training, where a large number of
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21312 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
                                                        2/2




                      persons were kept in overcrowded conditions, and were

                      subjected to physical and mental torture, while additional

                      amounts were also fraudulently taken from them and their

                      families, leading to their illegal detention until police raided the

                      premises and rescued around 90 youths along with seized

                      documents, identity cards, mobile phones, and related materials.

                                   4. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence as

                      well as the materials available on record, this Court is not

                      inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

                      petitioner in the present case.

                                   5. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is

                      hereby rejected.

                                   6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made

                      herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application

                      and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any

                      subsequent stage of the proceedings.



                                                         (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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