Patna High Court
Manish Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient basis to deny bail.
Summary
Manish Kumar Singh applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case involving a stolen motorcycle recovered from the courtyard of Arvind Kumar. The prosecution alleged that Singh had parked the stolen bike, which bore a falsified registration number, and cited several offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Singh contended that the seizure memo lacked details, no theft case had been lodged, and that his prior criminal antecedents led to false implication. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the absence of a theft FIR and the possibility of false implication. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in the absence of a registered theft FIR and given the petitioner’s criminal antecedents
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the stolen motorcycle case warrants pre‑emptive detention
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- theft
- stolen vehicle
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3368 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2025 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Manish Kumar Singh S/O Dilip Kumar Singh R/O Nawabganj, P.S.-
Manihari, Distt- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Manihari P.S. Case No.237 of 2025, F.I.R dated
16.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 338, 336(3), 318(4) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 15.09.2025,
Imam Hasan, P.S.I. of Manihari Police Station, was on
patrolling duty when he received information from Arvind
Kumar at about 6:10 PM that a suspected stolen motorcycle was
parked in his courtyard. Upon reaching the house of Tural
Singh, the police found a covered Hero Glamour motorcycle
bearing registration number BR-39M-6181. During inquiry, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3368 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
was revealed that the motorcycle had been parked there by
Manish Kumar Singh. The vehicle was taken to the police
station, where it was discovered that the registration number
affixed to the Glamour motorcycle actually belonged to a
different Pulsar motorcycle. After contacting the Pulsar’s owner,
it was confirmed that the registration number was genuine for
his vehicle, thereby establishing that the recovered Glamour
motorcycle was stolen. Neither Manish Kumar Singh nor his
family produced valid documents for the motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to
the contents of the F.I.R., submits that the seized motorcycle is
said to have been lying in the house of Arvind Kumar and while
by referring to the search and seizure memo, submits that under
the description of place, no such details are provided. It has next
been submitted that the said motorcycle is being shown as a
stolen motorcycle while there is no detail with regard to their
being any case lodged for theft of said motorcycle. It has further
been submitted, by referring to the contents of the F.I.R., that
merely because of his antecedent, the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case, while, from the F.I.R., it is
evident that the said motorcycle was found from the courtyard
of Arvind Kumar. The petitioner has three criminal antecedent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3368 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
and he is on bail in all the said cases.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the motorcycle was kept in the courtyard of one Arvind
Kumar and because of his antecedent, the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and there is nothing on
record to show a case of theft of the said motorcycle, lodged
before the Police. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Katihar, in connection with
Manihari P.S. Case No.237 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3368 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…