Patna High Court
Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the required enquiry report was not produced and the allegations did not yet establish a prima facie case.
Summary
Santosh Kumar, a clerk, was implicated in a complaint alleging that he received a Rs 15,000 bribe to facilitate the mutation of Jamuni Devi's land. An FIR was lodged under Sections 319, 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the petitioner was suspended pending departmental enquiry. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the mutation application had been rejected twice and that no prima facie case of bribery existed. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted that the enquiry report, ordered earlier, had not been produced. Considering the lack of substantive evidence and the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, the court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions, including a bail bond, sureties, and prohibitions against tampering with witnesses or committing further offences.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC when the prosecution has not produced the departmental enquiry report?
- Whether the allegations of bribery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, constitute a sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 319, 3(5)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bribery
- land mutation
- departmental suspension
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- evidence tampering
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84200 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- DHIBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Son of Late Ram Lakhan Ram R/vill - Mohalla Chaudhary
Gali, Rafiganj, P.S.- Rafiganj, Distt- Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shrishti Rani
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Dhibra P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, F.I.R dated
06.08.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 319, 318(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, Sub-Divisional Lok
Sikayat Padadhikari, through Letter No. 82 dated 31.07.2025,
recommended institution of a case based on a complaint made
by Jamuni Devi. She alleged that Rs. 15,000 was illegally
demanded and taken from her in connection with the mutation
of her land. It is further alleged that the amount was transacted
through the pay-phone of Santosh Kumar, a clerk, and Mani
Prasad, who acted as a middleman (bichaulia). On the basis of
this report and allegations of illegal gratification in the mutation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84200 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
process, the present case has been instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation of Smt. Jamuni Devi with regard to taking illegal
bribe of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of mutation of his land gets falsified
as the application for mutation was twice been rejected. There
was no occasion for this petitioner to have asked for bribe for
getting mutation of the land due in her favour. It is next been
submitted that the petitioner has been suspended from service
and has been placed under departmental proceedings,even
though, the allegations of bribe has not been found to be prima
facie, true the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the
investigation and would not tamper the evidences. This Court on
23.12.2025, had sought for the enquiry report based on which
the complicity of this petitioner was found and First Information
Report is said to have been lodged against this petitioner.
Despite directions issued by this Court, no such report has been
placed on record, by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for cancellation of bail application petition.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already
been suspended in departmental enquiry and the enquiry report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84200 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
based on which, the allegations are said to have been found
against this petitioner has not been placed despite order passed
by this Court to show his complicity. Accordingly, this Court is
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned ACJM-IV, Aurangabad in connection
with Dhibra P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84200 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…