Manibhushan Yadav @ Manibhushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8834 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2021 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Manibhushan Yadav @ Manibhushan Kumar S/O Harinarayan Ray R/O Vill.- Kataha, P.s - Muffasil, District- East Champaran,Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Rina Sinha, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate :
Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate :
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate :
Mr. Anirvan Choudhuri, Advocate :
Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rina Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 10.10.2025 in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 510 of 2021, FIR dated 18.09.2021 registered for the offence under Section 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code.
3. According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that petitioner along with other co-accused persons committed murder of the informant's brother.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8834 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026 2/3
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. It appears from the FIR that informant received oral information from someone that petitioner along with other have committed the murder of the informant's brother. He next submits that apart from the aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and it appears from the FIR that date of the occurrence was on 16.09.2021 but the FIR was lodge on 18.09.2021 i.e. after delay of about two days and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 10.10.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation, which is recorded in paragraph23 of the case diary that one video was prepared of the occurrence and in the said video the petitioner along with other accused persons are seen assaulting the deceased and thereafter the body of the deceased was found.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8834 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026 3/3 connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 510 of 2021 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Motihari, East Champaran.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T