Manikchand Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26499 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-347 Year-2025 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Manikchand Mandal S/o Sudama Mandal R/o Vill. - Sohata, P.S.- Falka, Dist.- Katihar. At present R/o Village - Satmi Bind Toli, Ward no. 08, P.S. - Dhamdaha, Dist. - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dewanand Tiwari, Advocate : Mr.Raghaw Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP For the informant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-04-2026 Heard Mr. Dewanand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha,learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Harendra Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 03.12.2025 in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 347 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 30.11.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109, 103(1) of BNS, 2023.
3. As per FIR, the informant alleged that on the day and time of the incident the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons assaulted the informant and her family
2/4 members on account of long standing land dispute.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that due to admitted land dispute the present occurrence had taken place. There is case and counter case. Further submits that it appears from the FIR that the specific allegation of assault is attributed against co-accused person, namely, Sudama Mandal, who happens to be the father of the petitioner and there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the petitioner, at best, the petitioner may be a member of the mob and the police, after investigation, submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner and petitioner is in custody since 03.12.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question, apart from that, the petitioner carries two more cases other than the present one, out of two cases, the petitioner is on bail in one case and in rest one case, he has been acquitted from the learned Trial Court itself, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.
3/4
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, 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 J.M., Purnea in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 347 of 2025, 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 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the
4/4 above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T