Mani Bhushan Pathak vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Mani Bhushan Pathak, is seeking anticipatory bail in Chandil PS Case No. 60 of 2025, registered under sections 316(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioner is a partner in a business manufacturing trolleys. The case arises from an agreement between a co-partner, Shubham Kumar, and the informant for the supply of trolleys. The allegation is that the trolleys were not supplied within the stipulated time. The petitioner has annexed the gate pass of the factory from which the trolleys were taken out and highlighted that another partner has already been granted anticipatory bail in a related matter (ABA No. 7273 of 2025). The State opposes the prayer for bail.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the contents of the FIR, which indicated an agreement for the supply of trolleys. The presence of Annexure-2, a GST certificate, and the gate pass of the factory from which the trolleys were taken out were noted as significant. Furthermore, the Court took into account that the matter arose out of an agreement and that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. Based on these considerations, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court within four weeks and, upon surrender/arrest, to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he is a partner in the business and that trolleys were indeed supplied as per an agreement. He relies on the gate pass of the factory as evidence of dispatch and points to the fact that a co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail in a similar application (ABA No. 7273 of 2025). The petitioner argues that these factors warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that there are allegations of non-supply of trolleys, which forms the basis of the FIR.