Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7069/2026bail granted

Nanhu Manjhi @ Raj Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-18Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7069 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya ====================================================== Nanhu Manjhi @ Raj Kumar Manjhi S/o Mantu Manjhi @ Maul Manjhi @ Ram Bilash Manjhi @ Ram Vilash Manjhi Resident of Bardiha Tola Dukhi Bigha, P.S.- Tankuppa, District- Gaya Jee, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate : Ms. Deepali Singh, Advocate : Mr.Anmol Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2026 Heard Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh,learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Bharat Lal, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 22.11.2025 in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.07.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 190,126(2),115(2), 109, 140(1),137(2),303(2),352,351(2) of BNS, 2023.

3. As per FIR, allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other co-accused persons assaulted the family members of informant due to which her father-in-law has died.

2/4

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and co-accused persons, namely, Sugiya Devi @ Sunaina Devi and Samdeo Manjhi @ Shyamdeo Manjhi, against whom the similar allegation, have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.01.2026 and 19.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos.86948 of 2025 and 87400 of 2025 respectively and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 22.11.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question and petitioner is named in the FIR.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has

3/4 clean antecedent, there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the petitioner in the FIR and coaccused persons, against whom the similar allegation, have been granted bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-16, Gaya Jee in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed

4/4 his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U