Birwal Manjhi @ Birbal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3339 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-638 Year-2024 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

Birwal Manjhi @ Birbal Kumar S/o Arjun Manjhi R/o Village- Dharampur, PS- Kalpa (Jehanabad), Distt.- Jehanabad, Bihar 2.

Arjun Manjhi S/o Late Jagdeo Manjhi R/o Village- Dharampur, PS- Kalpa (Jehanabad), Distt.- Jehanabad, Bihar 3.

Ajeet Manjhi @ Ajeet Kumar S/o Arjun Manjhi R/o Village- Dharampur, PS- Kalpa (Jehanabad), Distt.- Jehanabad, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumari Chandna, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 02-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.

2. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the named accused persons including the petitioners assaulted the informant's younger brother with Lathi, Danda and thereafter they pressed his neck as a result of which he became unconscious and he was taken to the Sadar Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3339 of 2025(5) dt.02-07-2025 2/2 petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and no such incident as stated in the FIR has occurred. It has further been submitted that there is no motive assigned as to why such an occurrence has taken place and from perusal of the FIR, it would also be evident that there is a general and omnibus allegation against all the named accused persons. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated on account of personal differences and they have clean criminal antecedents and petitioners no. 1 and 2 have been in custody since 15.08.2024, while petitioner no. 3 has been in custody since 13.11.2024.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into account the nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioners. Hence the prayer is rejected. (Sourendra Pandey, J) Prakash/- U