Sujeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1959 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2025 Thana- MAINATAND District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar S/O Lalan Prasad @ Anant Singh R/O Village- Dhobni, Panchayat- Sukhlahi, Police Station- Mainatand, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Shashi Shekhar Sinha. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan ,A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mainatand P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 316(5), 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had demanded Rs. 219-250/- per quintal from the brother of one Amit Kumar, who had originally made a complaint on the basis of a viral audio.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even if the allegations are taken on their
2/4 face value, from the inquiry report it would be evident that only allegation against the petitioner is that he had the intentions of demanding Rs. 219-250/- per quintal from the farmers. It has been submitted that the said Sumit Kumar has categorically stated that till date he has not given the paddy. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner being the Chairman of the PACS has falsely been implicated through an audio which again was admittedly found to be altered as admitted by the person who had made it viral. It has further been pointed out that the second part of demand of Rs. 80/- per quintal by way of commission by the petitioner and the officials was found to be false. It has next been submitted that even if all the allegations are taken to be true, the only offence remains is that the petitioner was demanding money, however, no transaction was taken place. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner carries one criminal antecedent in which police has submitted final form.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has stated through the counter affidavit that after enquiry it was found by the Three Member Committee, the petitioner had the intention of demanding Rs. 219-250/- per quintal from the farmers. It has
3/4 further been submitted that pen drive along with a certificate has also been produced before the police which goes on to certify the truthfullness of such audio clip and therefore the petitioner cannot take advantage out of the same.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and circumstances and taking into account the admitted fact that the audio clip was altered and also the fact that no transaction has taken place, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Mainatand P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
4/4 in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond. (v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) aditya/- U T