Patna High Court
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjiv SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the allegations did not justify denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after police raided his shop and seized a dismantled e‑rickshaw allegedly stolen, while a person fleeing the scene was identified as the petitioner. The prosecution alleged an offence under Section 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, but the petitioner contended he was not present during the raid and had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the alleged theft. The High Court examined the facts, noting the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the stolen vehicle and his clean antecedents. Applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions, including bail bonds and sureties. The order emphasized that the bail conditions are not to delay verification of antecedents and that the observations are not binding during trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged offence under Section 317(5) B.N.S.
- Whether the facts disclosed establish a prima facie case warranting denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 317(5)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 317 B.N.S.
- theft
- e‑rickshaw
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33443 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2026 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjiv Sharma, S/o Boa Sharma @ Baua Sharma, Resident
of Village- Jhapra Tola Ward No. 31/29 Saharsa, P.S.- Saharsa Sadar, District-
Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 173 of 2026,
registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 317(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the police received an
information that the petitioner owns a wielding shop and is
dismantling one e-rickshaw which is said to be stolen. The
police conducted a raid and saw one person running away from
the said shop of the petitioner, namely, Sanjeev Kumar, who
managed to escape. The police carried out a search and found
that there was one e-rickshaw in a dismantled position on which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33443 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/4
chassis number was found to be printed on the part of the said e-
rickshaw which was seized and a seizure list was prepared.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely
because he owns the said shop. It has further been submitted
that the petitioner was admittedly not present at the time of said
raid and it is also not stated that the person who had fled away
from the said shop was actually the petitioner. It has further
been submitted that though it has been alleged that the said parts
of the e-rickshaw was stolen one, however, there is no reference
of any person to whom the said e-rickshaw belonged, and no
report regarding the theft of said e-rickshaw was made earlier. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let
the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33443 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/4
on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where the
case is pending in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No.
173 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read
with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (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 and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of
the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive
occasions or in violation of the terms of the bail, the
bail bonds of the petitioner will be liable to be
cancelled by the concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at
any stage, it is found that he has concealed his
criminal antecedents, the Court concerned shall take
necessary steps for cancellation of his bail bond.
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33443 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
4/4
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/deepak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.