Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57600 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3486 Year-2012 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== Manoj Kumar S/o- Chhotan Rajak Village- Aijhi P.S- Korma DistSheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Badshah Choudhary S/o- Ram Ishwar Choudhary Village- Mubarkpur PsGarkha Dist- Saran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No. 1, Advocate For the State :
Mrs. Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Saran complaint case No. 3486 of 2012 and Tr. No. 332 of 2025, filed for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per allegation, the land in question belongs to the complainant, but the same has been mutated in the name of co-accused persons, Parvat Chouhdary and Jairam Choudhary in the year, 1970. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was a Revenue Karmachari and in the year, 2007-2008, he had issued a revenue receipt in the name of co-accused persons,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57600 of 2025(4) dt.10-12-2025 2/3 Parvat Chouhdary and Jairam Choudhary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as per Rules, Revenue Karamchari is bound to issue receipt only to those persons in whose name the land is mutated and even as per allegation, mutation has been done in the year, 1970 and not in the year of 2007-08 which is much prior to issuance of receipt by the present petitioner. As such, the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence, if any.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57600 of 2025(4) dt.10-12-2025 3/3 furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned Court Below, in connection with Saran complaint case No. 3486 of 2012, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents other than the disclosed one, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Jitendra Kumar, J) shoaib/- U T