Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8289/2023rejected

Dipu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-10Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8289 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2021 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== DIPU MANJHI S/o Nagina Manjhi R/o Village- Ajnaura, P.S.- Noorsarai, Distt- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 09.09.2022 in connection with Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2021, F.I.R. dated 07.05.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302,386,201,120(B) of IPC.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other co-accused persons have killed the brother of the informant due to non-fulfilment of demand of Cock and after death, one thousand rupees, which was kept in the box in the Poultry Farm, has taken away.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8289 of 2023(4) dt.10-08-2023 2/2 the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner is that he killed the brother of the informant and the postmortem report also supports the allegation as alleged in the FIR and a number of witnesses, in paragraph Nos.-7, 9, 10, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the case diary, have supported the allegation as alleged in the FIR.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2021 pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-VII, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T