Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Manoj Saw @ Shailendra Kumar ManojversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond and surety conditions.

Summary

Manoj Saw, also known as Shailendra Kumar, was implicated in a murder case (Sections 302 and 34 IPC) after an informant alleged that his brother was taken by the petitioner and later found dead. The petitioner argued that he has a clean record and that the police investigation concluded with a final report exonerating him, making the FIR based merely on suspicion and the ‘last seen’ theory. The State opposed the petition for anticipatory bail, but could not refute the police’s exoneration. The High Court considered the petitioner's claim of innocence, the police’s final form, and the risk of arrest, and decided to grant anticipatory bail subject to bond and surety conditions. The order directs that the bail be released if the petitioner surrenders or is arrested within six weeks, subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. and 482(2) B.N.S.S.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the FIR alleging murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.
  • Whether the police’s final report exonerating the petitioner warrants the court’s refusal to order his arrest.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • murder
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Section 302
  • Section 34
  • police exoneration
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • B.N.S.S.
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37419 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-491 Year-2020 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Manoj Saw @ Shailendra Kumar Manoj Son of Late Makeshwar Saw
                 Resident of Village - Bazar Samiti, Naya Bazar, Ward No. 28, P.S.- Kabaiya,
                 District - Lakhisarai
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                      ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Harendra Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of

                   the informant.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34

                   of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that on 25.09.2020, Dharmendra and petitioner along

                   with two unknown accused came at 10:00 p.m. and asked his

                   brother to accompany them for doing settlement of accounts,

                   accordingly, his brother accompanied them and did not return in

                   the night and next day the informant came to know that a dead

                   body is hanging from a tree near a bridge, hence, he reached the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37419 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/4




          place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his brother, thus,

          alleges based on suspicion that accused persons including the

          petitioner might have killed his brother.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that

          informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire

          allegation hinges around suspicion based on the theory of last

          seen. It is next submitted that if the brother of the informant did

          not return home in the night then why the informant or his

          family members did not try searching him. It is also submitted

          that the police, after threadbare investigation, came to a

          considered conclusion that petitioner is innocent and, thus,

          submitted Final Form No. 457 of 2021 exonerating the

          petitioner of the allegation as alleged in the FIR based on the

          material which transpired during the course of investigation but

          then the learned Trial Court differing with the police report took

          cognizance by an order dated 29.01.2025. It is, thus, submitted

          that    when      one     investigating       agency,   after   threadbare

          investigation, came to a considered conclusion that petitioner is

          innocent, whether it would be prudent for the Court to send the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37419 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            3/4




          petitioner to jail based on an order of cognizance which came to

          be taken based on the same police report which had exonerated

          the petitioner of the allegation. It is submitted that if the

          privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the

          petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to

          prove his innocence.

                       5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

          and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant

          opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but

          then are not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the police,

          after investigation submitted final form exonerating the

          petitioner of the allegation.

                       6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties

          and taking into consideration the submissions made by the

          learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the

          petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-

          (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case

          is pending/Successor Court in connection with Lakhisarai
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37419 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                       4/4




                     (Ramgarh Chowk) P.S. Case No. 491 of 2020, subject to the

                     conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

                     Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

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.