Patna High Court
Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioner’s clean record and the civil character of the dispute, anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
Manoj Kumar sought anticipatory bail after a complaint was lodged alleging his involvement in offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC relating to a land sale between Sudhir Yadav and Khushbu Kumari, his wife. He argued that the dispute was purely civil, that he had no role in any fraudulent act, and that his wife had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State and the informant opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted criminal prosecution. The High Court considered the petitioner’s clean antecedents, the civil character of the transaction, and the lack of evidence of criminal intent. Accordingly, the Court allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a complaint alleging offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471.
- Whether the civil nature of the land dispute negates criminal liability.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedents justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- civil vs criminal
- IPC offences
- Section 482
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6286 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-386 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Manoj Kumar S/o- Arjun Saw Village- Bihta, P. S. - Sheikhpura, District-
Sheikhpura, at present R/O- Naya Bazar, Astghatti Mor ward no. 21,
Hanuman Nagar, P. S. and District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudhir Yadav S/o- Bisheshwar Yadav R/v- Gidhha Ps- Halsi Dist- Lakhisarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, complainant alleged that
one Sudhir Yadav sold the land of complainant in favour of co-
accused Khushbu Kumari.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6286 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case merely because he happens to be husband of co-
accused Khushnu Kumari, who is bona fide purchaser of the
land in question and has purchased the same after due payment
of consideration money. It is further submitted that complainant
has also filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 30 of 2024 before
the learned Sub Judge-1st, Lakhisarai for cancellation of the sale
deed in question in which notices have been issued. Moreover,
the dispute is with regard to sale and purchase of land which is
purely civil in nature and none of the acts allegedly committed
by this petitioner would give rise to any criminal liability. It is
further submitted that co-accused Khushbu Kumari ha already
been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble
Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
64334 of 2025. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, nature of accusation, claim based on parity and clean
antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6286 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai in
connection with Complaint Case No. 386 of 2023, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…