Patna High Court
Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar BhartiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioner’s clean antecedents, the precedent of bail to a co‑accused, and the conditions imposed, anticipatory bail is warranted under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Sudhir Kumar Bharti, was implicated in a case alleging fraud in the distribution of government relief (G.R.) to ineligible flood‑affected beneficiaries, with accusations of taking a commission of Rs. 500 and offences under IPC sections 406, 409 and 34. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting a clean record and that the main thrust of the FIR is against government officials, not him. The State opposed, fearing the petitioner might abscond and that his involvement disadvantaged eligible beneficiaries. The court noted that a co‑accused, Kapilesh Kumar, had already been granted anticipatory bail and considered the petitioner’s assurances of cooperation. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC, while reserving the right of the trial court to cancel the bail if the petitioner fails to cooperate.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the circumstances?
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence if bail is granted?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 409
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 406
- IPC 409
- IPC 34
- fraud
- government relief distribution
- bail conditions
- non‑absconding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71939 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2024 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Saharsa
======================================================
Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Bharti Son of Satya Narayan Yadav @ Shiv
kumar Yadav R/o - Chandrayan, P.s - Nauhatta, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409
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 in light of directions received from the District
Magistrate, Saharsa dated 08.06.2025 with regard to the
irregularities found in the distribution of G.R among the flood
affected families of flood affected Panchayat of Nauhatta zone in
the flood year 2023, the FIR was instituted alleging that G.R.
amount was provided to more than 1200 ineligible beneficiaries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71939 of 2025(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that thrust of the
allegation is against the government officials, but then petitioner
is not a government employee and during the course of
investigation, it transpired that petitioner took commission of Rs.
500 for getting the G.R. amount distributed to ineligible
beneficiaries. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-
accused Kapilesh Kumar has been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by an order dated 11.02.2026 in Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 71273 of 2025 passed by a learned Co-
ordinate Bench.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the anticipatory
bail application of the petitioner and submits that ineligible
beneficiaries were given the benefit at the cost of eligible
beneficiaries and involvement of petitioner has transpired hence
if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may
abscond since he is not a government employee, on which the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the fact
that Kapilesh Kumar has been granted the privilege of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71939 of 2025(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail, 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 Nauhatta P.S.
Case No. 142 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father
namely Satya Narayan Yadav @ Shiv Kumar Yadav.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite
giving assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the
investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…