Manoranjan Kumar @ Samir Adarshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7695 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-390 Year-2023 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== Manoranjan Kumar @ Samir Adarshi S/O Siya Ram Mahto @ Siya Ram Prasad Village- Sighaul, PS- Muffasil, Dist- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mufassil P.S. Case No. 390 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Earlier by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16250 of 2024, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. As per the prosecution case the petitioner along with other co-accused persons is said to have assaulted the informant's side by means of several weapons due to which they

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7695 of 2025(2) dt.14-02-2025 2/3 sustained injury

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that there is specific allegation against co-accused Chandan Kumar and Rituraj Kumar. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

6. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail of the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature, hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. In such view of the matter and considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in 2021 SCC online SC 176, whereby the Court has held that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable, I am not inclined to entertain his prayer once again.

8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

9. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7695 of 2025(2) dt.14-02-2025 3/3 same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

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