Allowed

Manikant Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Jan 2026CR. MISC./2494/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners in custody since August 2025 for alleged possession and use of counterfeit Indian currency sought regular bail. Considering custody period and circumstances, the High Court granted bail on bonds of Rs. 15,000 each with two sureties, subject to family-member bailor and trial-appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on Rs. 15,000 bond each with two sureties, subject to conditions including a family-member bailor and attendance at trial dates.

Manikant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2494 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2025 Thana- MAHKAR District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

Manikant Kumar Son of Ajay Das Resident of Village -Fatehpur PS -Mahkar District -Gaya

¶5

Vikram Kumar son of Late Rajnandan Ravidas @ Rajnandan Das Resident of Village -Fatehpur PS -Mahkar District -Gaya At Present VillageKhedharpura, Ps- Mufassil, Dist- Gaya

¶6

Ravi Raushan Kumar @ Mritunjay Kumar @ Mritunjay Son of Siyakant Das Resident of Village - Dharampur, Ps- Kako, Dist- Jehanabad

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶14

APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case No. 206 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 178, 179, 180, 182, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶16

The prosecution case, in short, is that, the police got information that three persons are carrying counterfeit Indian currency and are trying to use it in the shop and when they were asked about the source of these counterfeit currency they were unable to give any clear answer.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2494 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026 2/3

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were not involved in counterfeiting the Indian Currency nor they were aware that the currency they possess was fake one. The petitioners are in custody since 19.08.2025 and have got no criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the B.N.S.S.

¶19

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. The petitioners have been apprehended on the spot and Rs. 4100/- has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Hence, they may not be released on bail.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the period of custody undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶21

Let the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2494 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026 3/3

¶23

No. 206 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:

¶24

(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of

¶25

the family of the petitioners.

¶26

(II) The petitioners shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.

¶27

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶28

Siddharth Soni/-

¶29

U T

Manikant Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikant Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Pandey @ Sushil Kumar Pandey @ Nishant Kr. Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Tuntun Rishi Vs The State of Bihar

Bhanu Mandal @ Bhanu Kumar Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Sumanta @ Suman Kumar @ Suman Mandal @ Sumanth Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Rai @ Mukesh Kumar Rai @ Mukesh Prasad Yadav Vs The State of Bihar