Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Manoj Ranjan Kumar Jha @ Manoj Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified monetary and procedural conditions, without delving into the merits of the fraud allegations.

Summary

The petitioner, Manoj Ranjan Kumar Jha, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the BNS for alleged fraud of Rs.3,26,900. The prosecution, based on an informant’s allegation, claimed the petitioner, a branch manager, had taken a loan from local women, deposited Rs.1,12,871 and refused to return the remaining Rs.2,14,029. The petitioner denied the charges, asserted innocence, and offered to pay the disputed amount in easy installments. The Court, without examining the merits, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail‑bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties, immediate deposit of Rs.1,14,029, and the balance Rs.1,00,000 in two installments within six months, with a provision to cancel bail for non‑compliance. The order was made solely for the purpose of granting bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged fraud under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the BNS.
  • Whether the conditions imposed by the Court for the grant of anticipatory bail are lawful and appropriate.

Legislation cited

  • BNS — s. 316(2), 318(4), 482(2)

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • fraud
  • Sections 318
  • Section 316
  • Section 482
  • Bihar
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72143 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2025 Thana- MAINATAND District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Manoj Ranjan Kumar Jha @ Manoj Ranjan Kumar S/o Kapileshwar Jha R/o
                 vill - Koili, P.O.- Koili, P.S.- Nanpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   13-01-2026                     Heard learned counsels for the parties.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318 ( 4 )

                   and 316 ( 2 ) of BNS.

                                3 . As per the prosecution case , informant namely ,

                   Arvind Prasad who is working as Branch Manager, NOPCL

                   alleged that this petitioner who was working as Branch Manger

                   in this branch of the company has committed a fraud of Rs.

                   3,26,900 with local women in the name of loan and upon

                   pressure from company he deposited Rs. 1,12,871/- and refused

                   to return the remaining amount of Rs. 2,14,029/-.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                   falsely been implicated in this case . However, at this stage,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72143 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/3




          without admitting her guilt and while denying the prosecution

          case , the petitioner is ready to deposit the disputed sum of Rs.

          2,14,029/- in easy installments.

                       5 . Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

          prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.

                       6. 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 J M 1 st Class, Bettiah, West

          Champaran in connection with Mainatand PS Case No. 53 of

          2025 , subject to condition as laid down under Section 482 ( 2 )

          of BNSS along with the following terms and conditions:

                           A.      At the time of furnishing bail-bond Rs.
                              1,14,029/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen
                              thousand twenty nine) shall be deposited
                              through cash in the Nazarat of the Civil
                              Court, Bettiah West Champaran .
                           B.      Rest amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees
                              one lac) shall be deposited in the Nazarat of
                              Civil Court, Bettiah West Champaran in 2
                              equal installments within a period of six
                              months from the date of furnishing bail-bond.
                           C.     The aforesaid payment shall be subject to
                              the final outcome of the case .
                           D.      If petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid
                              direction of this Court, the Court below is
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72143 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
                                                        3/3




                                       free to cancel the bail-bond of the petitioner.
                                     7. It is made clear that without going into the merit

                      of the case, the aforesaid order has been passed only for the

                      purpose of grant of bail.



                                            (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-

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.