Sudhir Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1446 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2022 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== SUDHIR KUMAR MANJHI Son of Ram Pravesh Manjhi Resident of village - Pachbhinda, P.S.- Taraiya, District - Saran at Chhapra, Bihar ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ram Chandra Singh Son of Late Kapildeo Singh Resident of village - Taraiya, P.S.- Taraiya, District - Saran at Chhapra 3.

Rupesh Kumar Singh @ Situ Kumar Son of Ram Chandra Singh Resident of village - Taraiya, P.S.- Taraiya, District - Saran at Chhapra 4.

Sunny Kumar Son of Ragho Singh @ Birbahadur Singh Resident of village - Taraiya, P.S.- Taraiya, District - Saran at Chhapra 5.

Anis Kumar Singh Son of Kamta Singh Resident of village - Taraiya, P.S.- Taraiya, District - Saran at Chhapra 6.

Bir Bahadur Singh @ Ragho Singh Son of Tribhuvan Singh Resident of village - Taraiya, P.S.- Taraiya, District - Saran at Chhapra 7.

Santosh Kumar Singh Son of Shiv Kumar Singh Resident of Pachbhinda, P.S.- Taraiya, District - Saran at Chhapra ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 03.12.2022 passed by learned Exclusive Special SC/ST (POA) Act, Saran at Chhapra in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2022 whereby the learned Court below has refused to take cognizance under the provisions of SC/ST

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1446 of 2023(6) dt.30-07-2025 2/2 (POA) Act on the ground that evidence produced by complainant/appellant did not infuse confidence in the court to consider for taking cognizance and thus, rejected the complaint petition.

3. E.W.-1 Kameshwar Manjhi stated during enquiry that the fight took place among Ram Chandra Singh, Rupesh Kumar Singh, Sanni Kumar, Anish Kumar, Veer Bahadur Singh, and Santosh Kumar Singh in relation to consuming Ganja. This witness did not whisper a word regarding the allegation of pointing a gun at the temporal region of the complainant, nor the allegation of calling the complainant by his case name. In para4, E.W.-3 has deposed that he was not present at the place of occurrence. The learned court below did not find substance in the complaint petition and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

4. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

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