MANOJ KUMAR SHAH vs THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS JOINT DIRECTOR, PATNA ZONE, DR. S.K. SINGH PATH
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63432 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2022 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
NAWAL KISHORE LADHA @ NAWAL LADHA son of Late Balkishan
Ladha Village- Astitwa Flat no-2061, 1 motilal Basak Lane, Kadapada
Kaurgachi Phul Bagan Ps- Kaurgachi Dist- Kolkata W.B
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Joint Director, Patna Zone
Dr. S.K Singh Path Off. Baily Road Patna
2. The Joint Director, Patna Zone, Central Bureau of Investigation, Dr. SK
Singh Path, Off Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti
Corruption Branch, Patna Dr. S K Singh Path, Off Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Investigating Officer, Special Case No-3/2022 Anti Corruption Branch
CBI Patna, Dr. SK Singh Path, Off. Baily Road Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64815 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2022 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
MANOJ KUMAR LADHA @ MANOJ LADHA Son of Late Balkishan
Ladha Resident of N.H. 34, Dalkola Bazar, P.S.-Dalkola, District-Utter
Dinajpur (West Bengal)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Joint Director, Patna Zone,
Dr. S.K. Singh Path, Off. Baily Road, Patna.
2. The Joint Director, Patna Zone, Central Bureau of Investigation, Dr. S.K.
Singh Path, Off. Baily Road, Patna.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-
Corruption Branch Patna, Dr. S.K. Singh Path, Off. Baily Road, Patna.
4. The Investigating Officer, Special Case No. 03 of 2022 arising out of R.C. 8
(A)/2022, Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Patna, Dr. S.K. Singh Path, Off.
Baily Road, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66404 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2022 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
2/15
MANOJ KUMAR SHAH SON OF SHRI SUREDRE SHAH RESIDENT OF
DESHBANDHU PARA, BALDORIA, GOALPOKHAR, P.S.- DALKHOLA,
DISTRICT- UTTAR DINAJPUR (WEST BENGAL)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS JOINT
DIRECTOR, PATNA ZONE, DR. S.K. SINGH PATH DR. S.K. SINGH
PATH, OFF. BAILY ROAD, PATNA BIHAR
2. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, SPECIAL CASE NO. 03/2022
ARISING OUT OF R.C. 8(A)/2022, ANTI-CORRUPTION THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER, CBI, PATNA, DR. S.K. SINGH PATH, OFF.
BAILY ROAD, PATNA, BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69413 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2022 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
SACHIN MISHRA @ SACHIN KUMAR MISHRA S/O- PRAMOD
KUMAR MISHRA R/O- FLAT NO.- 201, KISHORI ENCLAVE, SAKET
VIHAR, ANISHABAD, P.S.- PHULWARI SHARIF, DIST.- PATNA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE CENTRAL OF BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DIST.- PATNA
BIHAR, PATNA
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 63432 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr.Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, SC, CBI
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64815 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr.Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, SC, CBI
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66404 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr.Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, SC, CBI
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69413 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aakashdeep, Advocates
: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, SC, CBI
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
3/15
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 18-05-2026
Four Criminal Miscellaneous are being heard and
disposed of together in this case.
2. Cr. Misc. No. 63432 of 2023 has been filed on behalf
of Nawal Kishore Ladha whereas Cr. Misc. No. 64815 of 2023 has
been filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Ladha. Cr. Misc. No. 66404
of 2023 has been filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Sah whereas Cr.
Misc. No. 69413 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of Sachin
Mishra.
3. Nawal Kishore Ladha, Manoj Kumar Ladha and
Manoj Kumar are being represented by learned counsel Mr. Rajesh
Ranjan, whereas Sachin Mishra is represented by Learned Counsel
Mr. Akash Deep. CBI is represented by Mr. Sanjay Kumar,
Standing Counsel in all the cases.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the opposite party.
5. Basic facts are being taken from Cr. Misc. No. 63432
of 2023 filed by Mr. Nawal Kishore Ladha.
6. The petitioners have challenged the order taking
cognizance dated 21.08.2023 passed in R.C. No. 8(A) of 2022,
CIS-5/2022 by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI-I, Patna
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
4/15
whereby the learned Court was pleased to take cognizance under
Section 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As
amended in 2018).
7. The FIR in the instant case was lodged by CBI being
RC0232022A0008 dated 31.07.2022 under Section 7 and 8 of the
PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred as “the
Act”) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Nawal Kishore Ladha,
Manoj Kumar Ladha and Manoj Kumar Saha were arrayed as
Accused No. 4, 5 and 6, whereas Sachin Mishra, Senior DOM,
Sonepur, East Central Railway, Bihar was arrayed as Accused No.
3. Out of these four petitioners before the Court only Sachin
Mishra is a railway employee. Nawal Kishore Ladha is the director
of M/S Abha Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Abha Agro Export
Pvt. Ltd. Manoj Ladha is also the director of both the companies
and Manoj Kumar Saha is an employee of Nawal Kishore Ladha
and Manoj Kumar Ladha.
8. The prosecution case is that the CBI received
information that officials of East Central Railway including Sachin
Mishra and some other public servants were in the habit of
collecting illegal gratification from the vendors of East Central
Railway for preferential allotment of Railway rack for loading
goods. The information to the CBI further reveals that the private
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
5/15
petitioners in conspiracy with officials used to avail out of turn and
priority allotment of railway rack services, having extra stacking
time and other undue advantage in exchange of payment of dues
bribe on monthly basis.
9. The CBI received information that on earlier
occasions Rupesh Kumar received Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 6 lakhs on
27.06.2022 from Nawal Kishore Ladha through his driver Manoj
Kumar Saha. Sachin Mishra has also received money along with
Sanjay Kumar. The Information also revealed that on 30.07.2022
Nawal Kishore Ladha again directed Manoj Kumar Ladha and
Bajrang Ladha to send 23.5 lakhs to Patna, Sonepur and
Samastipur in different envelopes containing Rs. 6 lacs, 6 lacks, 5
lacs, 3 lacs, 2.75 lacs, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- to be delivered
to various officers of East Central Railway. Thus, a trap was laid
and a CBI team was constituted. Pre-trap proceedings were
completed. They found that a vehicle moved in around Patliputra
Railway Parishar, Patna and a person with carrying a grey colour
bag entered the premises of Patiputra Railway Parishar at 15:30
hours. When Manoj Saha came out, he was intercepted and then
they challenged that Manoj Kumar Saha has handed over the bribe
of Rs. 6 lacs to Sanjay Kumar. He accepted his guilt. He was
arrested. He stated that he delivered money in yellow packet to Sri
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
6/15
Sanjay Kumar. One other person Suman Kumar Singh was sitting
in the vehicle. Thereafter, the team entered the house of Sri Sanjay
Kumar. From his almirah one yellow coloured packets was
recovered. It was opened and Rs. 6 lacs was found in the envelop.
Thereafter, Manoj Kumar Saha told that the other packets were to
be delivered to other officials and the police recovered the amount
of Rs. 17.50 lacs from the vehicle.
10. A team from CBI on 31.07.2022 raided the house of
Nawal Kishore Ladha and Manoj Kumar Ladha and they were
taken into custody.
11. As the record reveals the case of Nawal Kishore
Ladha, Manoj Kumar Ladha and Manoj Kumar Saha are more or
less similar. Two of them are the vendors of Railway and Manoj
Kumar Saha is their employee who was allegedly sent to deliver
the bribe. The case of Sachin Mishra is on a different footing as he
was the proposed recipient of the bribe and was a railway official.
12. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners company procures food grains,
repacks them and then supplies it to its buyers. For storage and re-
packaging, the company has established different godowns in
Bihar. Railway is one of the modes of transportation. It is their
case that prior to 2014 the process of registration of demand for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
7/15
wagons/racks was being done manually. Thereafter, the Ministry
initiated web portal where entire process was computerized and
there was no scope of manual intervention. The customers are
provided user ID and password to log in to FOIS site. They further
submit that railway rules categorically provide that
allotment/loading orders are issued in accordance with priority of
registration. Railway Board issues preferential traffic order
wherein the preference of special facility for transport of goods is
provided. The company of the petitioner was availing priority “B”
category for preferential allotment of wagons. They claimed that
the company has never been allotted any rack/wagon out of term.
13. The Prosecution submitted final form no. 8/2022
dated 29.09.2022 and thereafter it filed supplementary charge-
sheet bearing No. 06/2023 dated 30.05.2023 in the present
prosecution.
14. The petitioners assert that recovery of Rs. 17.50 lacs
from car was for farmers for procuring food grains and that they
have no connection with the bribe recovered from the house of the
officials.
15. They stated that basic allegation in the present
prosecution regarding giving of illegal gratification for preferential
or out of term or emergent allotment of rack of railway officials by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
8/15
the petitioner is completely false as railway has a transparent
mechanism of registration of demand of racks and its allotment
through FOIS website electronically.
16. The counsel also states that in the supplementary
charge-sheet, in deviation to the basic allegation of preference to
the allotment of general wagons to the company of the petitioner,
the issue of allotment of premium wagons that too totally
misconceived has been added. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan also states that
though by the supplementary charge-sheet the I.O. has tried to
make out a case that the petitioner company used to get premium
indents cancelled and get a regular indent allotted in exchange for
the same which is false as the cancellation of premium indent was
not at the whim of the officer and the destination for which
premium indents were cancelled and the destination for which
general indent were allotted are totally different.
17. The argument of the counsel in the first blush seems
attractive. He has argued that railways have transparent system and
that there was no scope for any deviation by the officials. They
have tried to argue that initially in the FIR allegation was with
regard to preferential allotment of railway racks for loading goods.
When no material was found to support the said allegation, another
allegation was attempted to be made in the supplementary charge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
9/15
sheet that the petitioner-company used to get premium indents
cancelled and get a regular indent allotted in exchange of the same.
18. The counsel for the petitioners in three cases of
Vendor side, however, could not explain the trapping of Sri Manoj
Kumar Saha in the Patliputra Railway Parishar with Rs. 17.5 lacs
in different packets and recovery of Rs. 6 lacs from Sanjay Kumar
a railway official who has been named in the FIR.
19. In the considered opinion of this Court the issue of
preferential allotment of general wagons to the company and the
issue of cancelation of premium indents and allotment of regular
indent are clearly extremely disputed questions of fact. The
counsel no doubt has laboriously taken the Court through different
rules and orders showing that there was no scope for manual
interference. However, the very detailing of the issue in the
petition itself would show that this is clear question of fact where
documents both private and public are needed to be seen, exhibited
and proved. There is clear requirement of analysis of the rules and
matching them with the documents of the railways as well as that
of the petitioner. Only then a finding of guilt or otherwise could be
arrived at.
20. That the scope of summary jurisdiction under
Section 482 is limited. Though the documents of unimpeachable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
10/15
integrity could be looked into by the Court but the disputed
questions of fact like the allotment orders and the cancellation
orders as well as reason for cancellation etc. are beyond the scope
or jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 against the order
taking cognizance. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the facts require a
detailed adjudication and it will not be possible to determine the
veracity of allegation or otherwise in the instant proceeding.
21. Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Ranjan has emphasized
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Subair Vs.
State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 SCC 587 that wrong gain or
loss is required. The court is not in disagreement. The judgment
referred to is of appeal after conviction. Here the issue is as to
whether this forum at this s tage is empowered to look into materials .
22. In Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja v. State of
Gujarat, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 398 Hon’ble Apex Court held
at Para 11 that, “ ...Suffice it is to observe that the High Court
should not have examined and recorded conclusion on the
disputed fact to quash the FIR... ”
23. In State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty, reported in
(2022) 16 SCC 703 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at Para
8.2 that, “ It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
11/15
sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per the
settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in
the FIR/complaint.... .”
24. In Anukul Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2060 it has been held that, “11.5. Thus, the
cumulative principles that emerge are: while the jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised
sparingly, it is the duty of the High Court to intervene where
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of
process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and
criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where
disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter
must ordinarily proceed to trial” .
25. This Court, in the light of Judgments quoted above
juxtaposed against the facts of this Case, feels that the case is one
where disputed questions of facts are involved and thus the order
of cognizance need not be interfered with.
26. So far as the case against Sachin Mishra, the
Railway officials is concerned, he is a railway official. The case
against him rests solely on the confessional statement of Manoj
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
12/15
Kumar Saha that he was one of the intended recipients of the
packets seized at the Patiputra Railway Parishar. Further allegation
is that in order to give the first three petitioners preferential
allotment in booking of railway racks he has accepted bribes from
them on 24.05.2022 and on 11.06.2022.
27. The counsel for the petitioner asserts and the counsel
for the CBI has no response at all to the statement made by the
counsel for the petitioner Mr. Akash Deep that in the entire
investigation including the first charge-sheet dated 29.09.2022 and
supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.05.2023 there is no material
to suggest that the petitioner on 24.05.2022 and 11.06.2022
received any bribe.
28. It is submitted that even in the confession of Manoj
Kumar Saha it was disclosed only that the bribe amount was to be
delivered to the other officers of the railway. He did not even name
the petitioner as one of the persons to whom the bribe was to be
delivered.
29. Mr. Akash Deep, Learned Counsel for Sachin Mishra
has stated that though the CBI claims that the voice recording of
the petitioner was there but they have not given any detail of any
telephonic conversation nor there is any transcript copy of the
conversation to support the allegation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
13/15
30. The counsel for the petitioner asserts that on
31.07.2022 as well as on 01.08.2022 the premises of the petitioner
i.e. even office, guest house including his residential flat at
Anishabad, Patna were searched by the CBI but there was no
recovery of any document relating to business transaction of
Ladha brothers. He asserts that only a conversation would not
implicate the petitioners as they were the vendors of the railway
and he was an official of railway and unless any conversation or
transcription is specified there is no point entering into the area of
telephonic conversation to implicate the petitioner. He also asserts
that the petitioner joined the Sonepur Division on 27.04.2022
much after the initiation of preliminary investigation and thus, the
information received by the CBI in respect of Sonepur Division
was not against the petitioner as he was not even posted at the said
Division.
31. That the counsel for the CBI has filed counter
affidavit. The counter affidavit in para 5 refers to the telephonic
conversation but again without any detail despite the specific
allegation of counsel for the petitioner that there is no reference to
any conversation implicating him in the entire chat. In para 16 a
very vague allegation has been levelled. It states that though the
accused petitioner had no role in booking and cancellation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
14/15
premium intends he knowingly created hurdles in the way of
premium indents by allowing stacking for normal indents so that
premium indents got automatically cancelled on technical grounds.
This is as vague as it could get.
32. There is no response to the allegation that the
petitioner was not caught with the money. Nothing was recovered
from him in the raid conducted by CBI in his premises. There is no
detail of any telephonic conversation or any transcript in both the
charge-sheets implicating the petitioner. No response to this
allegation has been given in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI.
Again, no material has been disclosed in the entire investigation as
to the specific source of information regarding the bribe earlier
taken or any money trail connecting the petitioner.
33. In absence of the same, there is absolutely no
material at all to proceed against the petitioner even on the basis of
a suspicion because the CBI during entire investigation could not
bring up a single credible material connecting the petitioner with
the crime.
34. In result Cr. Misc. No. 63432 of 2023 filed on behalf
of Nawal Kishore Ladha, Cr. Misc. No. 64815 of 2023 filed on
behalf of Manoj Kumar Ladha and Cr. Misc. No. 66404 of 2023
filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Sah are dismissed whereas Cr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63432 of 2023 dt.18-05-2026
15/15
Misc. No. 69413 of 2023 filed on behalf of Sachin Mishra is
allowed.
35. The order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2023
passed in R.C. No. 8(A) of 2022, CIS-5/2022 by the Court of
learned Special Judge, CBI-I, whereby the learned Court was
pleased to take cognizance under Section 7 and 8 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) and issued
summons against Nawal Kishore Ladha, Manoj Kumar Ladha and
Manoj Kumar Saha stands. They are to face trial.
36. The order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2023
passed in R.C. No. 8(A) of 2022, CIS-5/2022 by the Court of
learned Special Judge, CBI-I, whereby the learned Court was
pleased to take cognizance under Section 7 and 8 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) and issued
summons against Sachin Mishra is hereby quashed.
(Ansul, J)
amitkr/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 11.05.2026
Uploading Date 19.05.2026
Transmission Date 19.05.2026