IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21312 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-539 Year-2025 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Manish Sinha @ Manish Kumar @ Manisha Kumar S/O Jawahar Prasad @ Jawahar Singh Resident of Village- Karariya, P.S- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Uma Shankar, Advocate Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 01-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 539 of 2025 registered for offences under Sections 127(2), 318(4), 143(3), 338, 336(3), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the FIR, the accused persons, associated with “Otamics Company,” lured unemployed youths from several states with false promises of jobs offering Rs. 30,000– 35,000 salaries, brought them to Motihari, and illegally collected money from them in the name of agreements and other charges; the victims were allegedly confined in rented premises under the pretext of job training, where a large number of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21312 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 persons were kept in overcrowded conditions, and were subjected to physical and mental torture, while additional amounts were also fraudulently taken from them and their families, leading to their illegal detention until police raided the premises and rescued around 90 youths along with seized documents, identity cards, mobile phones, and related materials. 4. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the materials available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 5. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. 6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. Shishir/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T