Patna High Court
Sanjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a bail bond, sureties and the condition of cooperation with the investigation, with power to cancel the bail if cooperation is not forthcoming.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S.S. He contended that he was falsely implicated based on a fake signature of a school headmaster on bills for submersible boring, bench and desk supplies, and that he had previously been acquitted in a related matter. The petitioner argued that he had completed the work, the headmaster submitted the bill, and that he would cooperate with the investigation, citing a prior order granting anticipatory bail in a related case. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., and conditioned the bail on the petitioner’s cooperation, reserving the right to cancel it if he fails to cooperate. The order also directed that the trial court may cancel the bail bonds upon notice from the investigating officer.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. for the offences alleged.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and prior acquittal justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- What conditions may be imposed on anticipatory bail and the circumstances for its cancellation.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 482(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- FIR
- Section 318
- Section 338
- Section 336
- Section 340
- Section 61
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- cooperation with investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88033 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2025 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Ramdeo Prasad Yadav Resident of Village-
Rampur Bheriyahi, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur, Proprietor of Sanjay
Enterprises, Kolhua Paigambarpur, Bairiya, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-02-2026 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 318(4),
338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S.S.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case but then was acquitted in
the trial and the informant alleges that Saket Ranjan along with
the petitioner, based on fake signature of the Headmaster of the
concerned school on bills related to submersible boring, bench
and desk etc. obtained payment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case without
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88033 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
holding a proper inquiry. It is next submitted that had petitioner
been given an opportunity of explaining his side of the case
perhaps the instant FIR would not have been instituted. It is also
submitted that petitioner had completed the work and had
requested the Headmaster to submit the bill as per departmental
order. It is further submitted that it was the Headmaster who
submitted the bill but in the FIR it is being alleged that based on
fake bills, the payment was obtained. It is also submitted that
Saket Ranjan had approached this Court seeking anticipatory
bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.54778 of 2025 and the same came to
be allowed by an order dated 03.09.2025. It is also submitted
that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88033 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
is pending/successor court in connection with Mithanpura
P.S.Case No.64/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
7. 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 the 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.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…