Patna High Court
Manoj Sao @ Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to bond and conditions, as the main allegation is against his deceased father and he has no criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Sao, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a 2011 case alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and common intention under IPC sections 420, 406 and 34. The prosecution’s FIR states that the petitioner’s father, Rajendra Sao, lured a victim with a promise of work, received Rs.50,000 and failed to deliver, while the petitioner allegedly denied taking any money. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the primary accusation was against his deceased father, and that he has no criminal record. The State opposed the bail. The Court, noting the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and his clean antecedent, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond, sureties and conditions of personal appearance and cooperation. The bail may be cancelled if the petitioner unjustifiably absents himself from any trial date.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is liable for offences under IPC sections 420, 406 and 34.
- Whether anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 438 should be granted despite the delay.
- Whether conditions should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 420
- IPC 406
- IPC 34
- false implication
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3730 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2011 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Manoj Sao @ Manoj Kumar S/o Rajendra Sao @ Rajendra Saw R/o village -
Jhakhar, P.S. and District - Lakhisarai, and presently residing at C-50, C-
Block, Patel Garden, P.S.- Kakroula, District- South West Delhi, Delhi-
110078.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kedar Singh S/o Late Rameshwar Singh R/o village - Lal Diyara, P.S.-
Pipariya, Distt.- Lakhisarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this application prays for bail
apprehending his arrest in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case
no.32 of 2011 registered for the offence punishable under
sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that he was lured by Rajendra Sao of getting him work on the
payment of Rs.50,000/. It is stated that after 3-4 days of the
promise, Rajendra Sao along with his son ie the petitioner
herein came to his house where the informant paid a sum of
Rs.50,000/ to Rajendra Sao. However, neither the said Rajendra
Sao got him the work nor did he return him the amount. On
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3730 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
going and demanding the amount, it is stated that the petitioner
told the informant that he had not taken any amount and as such,
the same would not be returned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The
allegation is solely against Rajendra Sao ie the father of the
petitioner and not the petitioner herein who is alleged only to
have accompanied his father. It is further submitted that though
the case is of the year 2011 as the petitioner has been residing
and earning his livelihood in Delhi, therefore, the delay in
moving for anticipatory bail. The father of the petitioner died on
9.3.2015. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the
investigation/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the FIR, the allegation mainly being against the father of the
petitioner together with the petitioner not having any criminal
antecedent, it is directed that the petitioner, above named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3730 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
connection with Pipariya P.S. Case no.32 of 2011 on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Lakhisarai on the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the case/trial and shall cooperate in the
case/trial.
(ii) In case of the petitioner’s absence on any single
date for reasons not to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court,
the learned trial Court may cancel the bail bond of the petitioner
and take him into custody till conclusion of the trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Checking your session…