Mukesh Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6103 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-498 Year-2022 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== MUKESH MANJHI S/O LATE GANESH MANJHI Resident of VillageHasori, P.S.- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 27.08.2022 in connection with Sheikhpura (Sirari O.P.) P.S. Case No. 498 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 23.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution case, one Sabo Devi gave a written petition before the officer-in-charge of concerned police station and alleging therein that on 22.08.2022 at about 07:00 O'clock when the informant husband was sitting in her house then informant's son Mukesh Manjhi came there and demanded two rooms but the deceased deny to give two rooms in his share then accused person started abusing and assaulting. When the informant intervene to save her then accused went to house and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6103 of 2023(3) dt.05-07-2023 2/2 came with Pechkesh and inserted the Pechkash in his chest as a result deceased died on spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in the present case mother is the informant of the petitioner and petitioner has killed his father and the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is supported by the medical evidence (postmortem).

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Sheikhpura (Sirari O.P.) P.S. Case No. 498 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura. Prayer is refused.

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