Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Manindra Kumar Mandal @ Manindar Kumar Mandal @ Mahindar Kumar MandalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail as he failed to comply with the conditions of police bail and no change in circumstances justifies relief.

Summary

Manindra Kumar Mandal sought anticipatory bail in connection with a vigilance case under sections 7(a), 7(c), 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His earlier application for anticipatory bail had been rejected, and he was later granted police bail under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the completion of the investigation and a supplementary charge‑sheet created a fresh ground for relief. The Vigilance Department contended that the petitioner deliberately refused to give a voice sample, a condition of his police bail, and therefore failed to comply with its terms. The Court held that the petitioner’s non‑compliance with the police bail conditions and the absence of any material change in circumstances did not justify granting anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within twenty days.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail after a prior rejection and after being granted police bail under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.
  • Whether refusal to comply with the conditions of police bail (refusal to give voice sample) defeats the grant of anticipatory bail.
  • Whether the filing of a supplementary charge‑sheet constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • police bail
  • Prevention of Corruption Act
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • non‑compliance
  • voice sample
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4475 of 2026

                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2023 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Manindra Kumar Mandal @ Manindar Kumar Mandal @ Mahindar Kumar
                 Mandal S/O Late Loknath Nandal R/O Vill.- Kathghar, P.O.- Baina Via
                 Mahadeopur, P.S.- Pranpur, Dist.- Katihar.         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.    The Director General Vigilance, Bihar, Patna
           3.     Kartik Sharma Son of Late Rajendra Sharma, R/o Village And Post- Piyani,
                  P.S.- Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur (Arrah)
                                                                     ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Jainendra Kumar Pushkar, Adv.
                 For the State           :        Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
                 For the Vigilance       :        Mr. Arvind Kumar, (law officer, Adv.)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   25-02-2026                               Heard the parties.

                                    2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Special Case No. 6B of 2023 arising out of Vigilance P.S.

                   Case No. 14 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under

                   sections 7(a), 7(c), 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption

                   Act.

                                    3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   this is the second attempt of the petitioner to get the relief of

                   anticipatory bail and his first prayer for the same relief was

                   rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2024 passed in Cr.

                   Misc. No. 84202/2023 and the fresh ground for renewing the

                   prayer is the completion of the investigation and the submission
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4475 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026
                                            2/3




          of a supplementary charge-sheet against him after granting him

          the benefit of the provisions of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.

          Though, in light of the said benefit of police bail, the petitioner

          had no apprehension of arrest till that time, however, after

          submission of the charge-sheet, the learned trial court has taken

          cognizance of the alleged offences and issued summons against

          him, which were not within the knowledge of the petitioner.

                          4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

          Vigilance Department submits that during the course of

          investigation several notices were sent to the petitioner to appear

          and provide his voice sample and finally on 16.01.2025 the

          investigating officer personally met the petitioner at his home

          and served the notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C. asking him

          to give his voice sample but even then the petitioner deliberately

          refused to give voice samples. The petitioner’s voice sample is

          required for matching the same with the alleged conversation

          which was recorded during the relevant period of time and the

          same is very material piece of evidence. So, the condition of the

          police bail was not complied with by the petitioner when the said

          notice was served upon him.

                          5. Heard both the sides and perused the relevant

          materials. The petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail has already

          been rejected on merit. Though, after such rejection, the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4475 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                       petitioner was given the benefit of police bail by the

                       Investigating Officer, as submitted by the learned counsel

                       appearing for the Vigilance Department, the terms and conditions

                       of the said police bail were not complied with by the petitioner.

                       In this regard, a solemn affirmation has been made on affidavit,

                       considering this aspect, this Court is not persuaded to take a

                       liberal approach to the petitioner’s prayer and also does not find

                       any subsequent change in circumstances entitling him to the

                       relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the instant application

                       stands rejected.

                                       6. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the

                       trial court within twenty days from today. If he surrenders within

                       the said period, it shall be open to the trial court to pass an

                       appropriate order with regard to his custody or bail, and the

                       rejection of the petitioner’s prayer in the present application shall

                       not affect the merit of any such prayer made before the trial

                       court. Further, the present order shall not affect the right of the

                       Vigilance Department to seek further interrogation of the

                       petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law.



                                                 (Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-

U        T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.