Shambhu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17397 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-607 Year-2024 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Shambhu Manjhi Son of Chhathilal Manjhi Resident of Village - Rahampur, P.S. - Garkha, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Rananjay Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Arit Daula Siddique, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 607 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 109(1) of the BNS.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted a farsa blow on the person of the injured, as a result of which, he sustained head injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that although it is true that the injured has received six injuries on his person, only one

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17397 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2025 2/2 injury on his head is grievous in nature, but this injury is not attributed against the petitioner rather it is attributed against coaccused Amit Kumar. He has also submitted that there is a case and counter-case between the parties, and the members of defence side have also suffered injuries.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused persons badly assaulted the injured and he suffered one grievous injury.

6. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted a farsa blow on the person of the injured and the injured received two sharp cut incised wounds: (i) lacerated wound with sharp cut on the right eyebrow and (ii) lacerated wound with sharp cut on the right parietal region.

7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the application of the petitioner is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself after remaining under custody for six months.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T