Manoj Pandey @ Manoj Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23676 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-265 Year-2023 Thana- CHANDI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Manoj Pandey @ Manoj Kumar Pandey son of Shri Ram Pandey Resident of Village -Ekwari PS- Sahar District -Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 265 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

The prosecution case is based on the self-statement of informant, who alleged that on 20.10.2023, while visiting the bank of Sone river with friends, they were attacked by Deepak Pandey, Vikas Singh, and others. During the attack, Harshit Singh was shot and killed, and the informant sustained bullet injuries. The assailants fled the scene, and the informant was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23676 of 2025(3) dt.30-07-2025 2/3 later hospitalized.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner bears one criminal antecedent. Allegedly petitioner fired upon the back side of Harshit. There is no independent witness to the occurrence. Informant is not the eye witness to the occurrence. There is case and counter case between the parties.

5.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is contended that there is direct allegation of firing against the petitioner upon one Harshit. Since investigation is still pending, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, there being direct allegation against the petitioner of firing, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

7.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same would be considered by the court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23676 of 2025(3) dt.30-07-2025 3/3 below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T