Patna High Court
Manindra Kumar Mandal @ Manindar Kumar Mandal @ Mahindar Kumar MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
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
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41A
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 12, 7(a), 7A, 7(c)
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
Checking your session…