Hapunmay Hansda @ Hopanmay Hansda v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18751 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2025 Thana- Champanagar District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Hapunmay Hansda @ Hopanmay Hansda W/O Manjhla Marandi Resident of Vill.- Masuria, Mangal Tola, Ward no. 11, P.S.- Sarsi, Dist.- Purnea. 2.

Shivlal Marandi S/O Late Diwan Marandi Resident of Vill.- Masuria, Mangal Tola, Ward no. 11, P.S.- Sarsi, Dist.- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Pathak, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Adv.

Ms. Suman Kumari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 137(2) of the BNS and later on Sections 103(1), 238(A), 61 and 3(5) of the BNS were added.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1, being woman, has been falsely implicated in the instant case based on suspicion. It is also submitted that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same records that accused persons were arrested who in their confessional statement disclosed that deceased had consumed liquor and thereafter tried to act inappropriately with the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18751 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 2/2 petitioner no. 1 who is wife of Manjhla Marandi, as such, Manjhla Marandi and Bajum Soren together started strangulating the deceased, it is thus submitted that as far as petitioners are concerned, no specific allegation is alleged against them, rather the occurrence is alleged to have taken place for the reason that deceased acted inappropriately with the petitioner no. 1 which angered her husband and Bajum Soren.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and submits that process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been executed, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to the petitioners to surrender and seek regular bail.

5. Permission is accorded.

6. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T