Allowed¶20

Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC14 Aug 2024CR. MISC./48416/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No.48416 of 2024; Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar; pre-arrest bail; anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; Section 438(2) conditions; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; Sachivalay P.S. Case No. 29/2024; IPC Sections 341, 342, 323, 379, 347, 506, 504, 34; kidnapping; criminal intimidation; contractor rivalry; quotation/bidding Building Construction Department; co-accused Sanjay Sharma; bail bond Rs. 10,000; antecedent verification condition; Purnendu Singh, J; order dated 14-08-2024.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail in connection with Sachivalay P.S. Case No. 29/2024, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.; bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each; arrest/surrender window of four weeks before the learned District Court; order conditional on antecedent verification.

Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with Sachivalay P.S. Case No. 29/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 379, 347, 506, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The petitioner was directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within four weeks, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The court found that the allegation against the petitioner had been made only for implicating him in a false case, the main allegation being against co-accused Sanjay Sharma, and in the absence of any assault caused by the petitioner to the informant, the petitioner had prima facie made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶17

Key takeaways

The learned District Court was directed to verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, and if he is found involved in other cases contrary to what was stated in paragraph 3 of the bail application, the bail order will automatically lose its force.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail granted (Purnendu Singh, J., 14-08-2024). Informant alleged kidnapping and threat of dire consequences to deter participation in bidding/quotation process of Horticulture Division, Building Construction Department, Patna, amid rivalry between two contractors; co-accused Sanjay Sharma and his sons Rajiv Kumar and Jitendra Kumar were named in the FIR, and the informant later named the petitioner in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Holding that the allegation against the petitioner was made only to implicate him in a false case, the main allegation being against co-accused Sanjay Sharma, and that no assault was caused by the petitioner, the Court found a prima facie case for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Bail ordered on a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two like sureties, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions; the learned District Court to verify criminal antecedents, failing which the order automatically loses its force.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48416 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2024 Thana- SACHIVALAYA District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Manoj Kumar, Male, aged about 45 years, Son of Late Dhannu Lal Singh @ Dhannu Lal Ray, resident of VILLAGE- SHEPURWA NARAYANPUR, P.O.- MADHOPUR, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA, BIHAR

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satya Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 14-08-2024 Heard Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, learned APP for the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Sachivalay P.S. Case No. 29 / 2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 379, 347, 506, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

As per the allegation made in the FIR, the accused persons named therein have kidnapped the informant, who has disclosed the name of the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is admitted that the co-accused

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48416 of 2024(2) dt.14-08-2024 2/3

¶15

Sanjay Sharma and his two sons, namely, Rajiv Kumar and Jitendra Kumar had kidnapped the informant and threatened him of dire consequences, if he would proceed to participate in the biding held by the Government. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is rivalry between the two contractors. Petitioner has clean antecedent.

¶16

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶17

Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that the informant has recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where he has stated that petitioner was also one of the accused and he was involved in his kidnapping. Informant has admitted his rivalry with other co-accused Sanjay Sharma and both of them wanted to file their quotation in the office of Horticulture Division headquarter, Building Construction Department, Patna. I find that the allegation against the petitioner has been made only for implicating him in a false case, which has been mainly alleged against co-accused Sanjay Sharma and in absence of any assault, which has been caused by the petitioner to the informant, I am of the opinion that petitioner has, prima facie,

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48416 of 2024(2) dt.14-08-2024 3/3

¶19

made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶20

The petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class-8, Patna/concerned court in connection with Sachivalay P.S. Case No. 29 / 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its force.

¶22

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶23

Sanjay/-

¶24

U T

Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipin Bihari Labh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Shobha Nand Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Izahar Vs Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Ashok Tuddu @ Ashok Murmu Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar @ Amit Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar