← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24605/2025bail granted

Manoj Kumar Das @ Manoj Kumar Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-30Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24605 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Das @ Manoj Kumar Ravidas, S/o- Late Jagdish Prasad Das, resident of Village- Khardih, P.S- Sikandra, District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate Mr.Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Rita Verma, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Kumar Jay, Advocate Mr. Prabhas Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2) and 3 (5) of BNS, 2023.

3. As per prosecution case, the uncle of the informant was murdered by slitting his neck and the name of the petitioner transpired along with other co-accused persons for being involved in the murder of the uncle of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

2/4 case. There is no material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the murder of the uncle of the informant. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case in the restatement of the informant wherein the informant raised his suspicion that as there has been previous dispute between the petitioner and the deceased on account of PDS dealership as well as land dispute, the petitioner was involved. But this is only a suspicion. The coaccused persons have confessed that the petitioner agreed to give them Rs.50,000/- for murder of the uncle of the informant, but no money transaction has been shown and this makes the accusation doubtful. No incriminating article has been recovered from the person/possession of the petitioner or at his instance.

The learned counsel further submits that the mobile number whose location was found near the place of occurrence does not belong to this petitioner and the petitioner has no concern with the mobile numbers said to be belonging to the accused persons. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is having clean antecedent and he is in custody since 29.01.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted.

5. Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the informant submits

3/4 that it is a heinous crime and the uncle of the informant was beheaded and the petitioner is the mastermind behind the said occurrence.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made hereinabove and considering the fact that recovery of no incriminating has been shown either from the the petitioner or at his instance and further considering lack of substantive material to connect the petitioner with the offence as alleged and also considering the period of custody of the petitioner, submission of charge sheet and his clean antecedent, the petitioner is directed to 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui, in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 480 (3) of BNSS and also the following conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the

4/4 bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T