Md. Manjar Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45432 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2018 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== MD. MANJAR ALAM S/O LATE KALIMUDDIN @ MD. KALIM @ MD. KALEEM R/O Vill.- Rahua, Ward No.- 16, P.S- Bousi (Raniganj), DistrictAraria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md Naushaduzzoha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 66 of the I.T. Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he is a retired employee and from his pension account, an amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- was withdrawn but he did not receive any message on his mobile from the bank and out of Rs. 1,41,000/-, an amount of Rs. 66,000/- was credited in the account of petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45432 of 2026(2) dt.15-07-2026 2/3 petitioner submits that the case is of the year 2018 and the police never made any endeavour to arrest the petitioner rather petitioner cooperated in the investigation. It is also submitted that no prudent person would get an amount credited in his own account and thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated. It is next submitted that petitioner was also given notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and thereafter charge-sheet came to be submitted in the year 2025. It is thus submitted that since police did not make any endeavour to arrest the petitioner and charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to jail. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial 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 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45432 of 2026(2) dt.15-07-2026 3/3 court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 471 of 2018 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

7. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay the trial in any manner, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after recording his statement.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) rajesh/- U T