Surendra Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2032 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2014 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Surendra Sharma Son of Narayan Sharma R/o Village - Bela Nawada, P.S. - Masraha, District - Khagaria.

2.

Mithilesh Kumar Son of Surendra Sharma R/o Village - Bela Nawada, P.S. - Masraha, District - Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Santosh Kumar Son of Ramanand Mahto R/o Village -Mushharlochanpur, P.S. - Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on the persuasion and inducement of these petitioners, informant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused persons to get his wife a job in the railways.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2032 of 2026(3) dt.17-02-2026 2/2 behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. As a matter of fact, the informant himself paid the amount to a secure government job, which itself is unlawful and he cannot claim to have been cheated. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that being induced by these petitioners, the other accused persons, took Rs. 3,00,000/- from the informant in lieu of providing job in the railways and thus, cheated him.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and specific and direct nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T