Manish Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25901 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-774 Year-2019 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Manish Kumar Singh S/o Brahmanand Singh R/o vill - Bankusba, P.S.- Kudhani (Turki O.P.), Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sangita Kumari W/o Raj Kumar Singh R/o vill - Barkurba, P.S.- Kudhani (Turki O.P), Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 17-04-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS, 2023') for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Kudhani (Turki O.P.) P.S. Case No. 774 of 2019, lodged on 26.11.2019, under Section 341/323/307/379/354/504/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, West, Muzaffarpur.

3. As per the prosecution, an FIR has been lodged against five accused persons including the present petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner and the others is that, while

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25901 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026 2/2 the informant was proceeding to the Court, they started abusing and assaulting him.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and only one injury was found on the persons of Raj Kumar Singh, the husband of the informant. Counsel submits that both the parties are agnates and co-villagers and due to intervention of the well wishers the matter has been compromised between them. Counsel submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that this is second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

6. Considering the fact that second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby refused. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T