Manish Kumar @ Golu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29280 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2023 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Manish Kumar @ Golu Kumar Son of Vijay Sahni @ Vijay Kumar Resident of village- Lakshminarayanpur, Tola -Bilanpur, P.S.- Lalganj, Dist-Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Matloob Rab,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in para-1 of the bail petition in course of the day.
2. Heard Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 28.10.2024 in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 356 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 12.10.2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341,323,307,504,506/34 of IPC.
4. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other co-accused persons and some unknown persons surrounded the husband of the informant and petitioner assaulted with rod on the head of her husband causing head
2/4 injury and blood started oozing out.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that due to admitted land dispute the present occurrence had taken place. Although the specific allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted to the husband of the informant by means of iron rod. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the medical prescription of the injured person which suggests that the injured person has gone to Hospital for treatment, which reads that"Patient came in emergency with complains of:- RTA Fall from bike on 01.10.2023 at 9.00 PM. Followed by LOC (+), vomiting, stitching wound over perital region", which suggests that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated.
Further submits that co-accused person, namely, Vijay Sahani has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.23087 of 2024 and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2024.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
3/4
7. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has clean antecedent, the allegation as alleged in the FIR is not supported by the medical evidence and co-accused person has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Judge-VIIIcum-A.C.J.M.-VIII, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 356 of 2023, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T