Manikant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7219 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District- Begusarai ====================================================== Manikant Kumar Son of Sitaram Mandal Resident of Village - Jangli Mandal Tola, Karari, P.S. - Muffasil District - Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-02-2026 Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Md. Matloob Rab, the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for renewing his prayer for bail in connection with Sahebur Kamal P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 317 (5) of B.N.S. and Sections 25 (1-B)a, 25 (1-AA) and 26 of Arms Act.
3. The present application has been renewed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the basis of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by this Court indicating the liberty granted to the petitioner while withdrawing the earlier application to renew the prayer for bail after framing of charge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charges in the present case had already been framed on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7219 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026 2/3 26.11.2025 but the same could not be mentioned at the time of the earlier order as the same was not within his knowledge. Besides the fact that charges have already been framed in this case, it is also a fact that the petitioner has been made an accused in the case of Arms Act showing recovery of firearm but the First Information Report itself would reveal that the mandatory provision of search and seizure were flagrantly violated in the present case as there are no independent witnesses to the seizure list, coupled with the fact that the motorcycle in question from which the recovery was made also does not belong to the petitioner.
5. The application for regular bail is opposed by learned A. P.P. for the State.
6. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 21.03.2025 and has no criminal antecedent, coupled with the fact that charges have already been framed, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Sahebur Kamal P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7219 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026 3/3 following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors would be close relative/family members of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner would co-operate in the trial by appearing on each and every date fixed in the case and in the event of his non-appearance on two consecutive dates without any sufficient cause, the learned trial court would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) vashudha/- U T