Mithun Manjhi @ Mithil Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6800 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2020 Thana- CHAKAND District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Mithun Manjhi @ Mithil Manjhi Son Of Mahesh Manjhi R/V- Panchu Bigha, P.S.- Chakand, District- Gaya 2.

Mahesh Manjhi Son Of Late Raghuni Manjhi R/V- Panchu Bigha, P.S.- Chakand, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Chakand P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 149, 341, 323, 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya.

As per prosecution case, the petitioners along with other accused persons caught and assaulted the son of the informant with intention to kill him. On hulla, when the informant with the villagers reached there, then accused persons fled away.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6800 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 2/2 They have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the postmortem report has not supported the prosecution case. Petitioners have got no criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioners are also involved in the present case, it is clear from the impugned order itself and the case diary was considered by the learned court below, after considering the details the court below has dismissed the anticipatory bail application. Hence, they do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in connection with Chakand P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T