Patna High Court
Sanju Manoj Ray @ Sanju RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioner’s ownership claim and lack of evidence of wrongdoing, anticipatory bail is warranted.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanju Manoj Ray, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (Didarganj P.S. Case No.250 of 2024) alleging extortion, assault and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in a land dispute, extorting money from an informant and threatening him. The petitioner contended that he is the rightful owner of the land, has never entered into any agreement with the informant, and that the FIR was filed to exert pressure while a civil title suit is pending. The court examined the factual matrix, noting the pending civil suit and the petitioner’s denial of any wrongdoing, and concluded that there is no substantive ground to deny bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the pending civil title suit and the petitioner’s claim of ownership negate the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 308(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- extortion
- civil title suit
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3616 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2024 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Sanju Manoj Ray @ Sanju Ray W/O Manoj Kumar Ray R/O Village -
Rampur Shyam Chak, P.O- Rampur Shyam Chak, P.S- Raghopur, Distt.-
Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 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 Didarganj P.S. Case No.250 of 2024, F.I.R
dated 14.07.2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 308(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, 04.07.2024 at about
11:30 a.m., the informant, Vidya Nand Ray, reached the
disputed land at village Mohli and found Sheo Balak Singh and
Kundan Kumar carrying out pillaring work. When the informant
objected, Kundan Kumar allegedly snatched Rs.10,000 and
demanded Rs.10 lakh as extortion (rangdari) for vacating the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3616 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
land. It is further alleged that there was an agreement for sale of
the land between the petitioner and the informant, which led to
an altercation among them. Subsequently, on 09.07.2024, the
informant allegedly received a phone call from Kundan Kumar
threatening him and demanding Rs.10 lakh to save his life. The
informant also disclosed that a separate land dispute case
between Sanju Devi and the informant was already pending.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the
statement made in the anticipatory bail petition submits that the
informant has already filed a Title Suit No.266 of 2023 before
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division 2 nd Patna City for
specific performance of contract under agreement for sale dated
30.08.2022 and on having acquired the knowledge, the
petitioner is said to have appeared and has denied the
agreement, which is said to have been arrived at between the
informant and this petitioner. It has next been submitted that
after filing of title suit, the instant F.I.R., is said to have been
registered for creating pressure while the disputes question in
issue is pending consideration in the Title Suit No.266 of 2023.
It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is the owner of the
land in question and has not entered into an agreement with any
person and the allegations which are levelled in the title suit as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3616 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
well as in the instant case, is out-rightly denied.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question and has
not entered into an agreement with any person and the
allegations which are levelled in the title suit as well as in the
instant case, are out-rightly denied, 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 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna
City, in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case No.250 of 2024,
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 of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3616 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
document 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…