Manjit Bind @ Manjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32792 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2025 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Manjit Bind @ Manjit Kumar Son of Jagan Bind Resident of VillageMahadeochak Semaria, P.S.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramanuj Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Koilwar P. S. Case No.296 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges based on secret information that house of Saraswati Devi was raided and from her house, a country-made rifle and a country-made double barrel gun was recovered and she disclosed that the arms belongs to petitioner who had given her to keep it secretly.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case based on confessional statement of Sarawasti Devi in police custody which

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32792 of 2026(3) dt.16-07-2026 2/2 does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that petitioner has no concern or relation with Saraswati Devi or husband Sanjay Bind.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that from perusal of the pleadings made in the anticipatory bail application, it manifests that petitioner knows Saraswati Devi and her husband Sanjay Bind, but then has not pleaded that he had any enmity with them nor has disclosed what the petitioner does for earning her living-hood. It is next submitted that off late in the State of Bihar, illegal weapons are being rampantly used in occurrences. It is further submitted that investigation in the case is continuing and interrogation of the petitioner is required.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T