Manish Kumar @ Mani Ram @ Maniya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23913 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-411 Year-2019 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== MANISH KUMAR @ MANI RAM @ MANIYA S/o Uday Prakash R/o Mohalla Kabir Ashram, P.S.- Samastipur Town, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-11-2020 Heard Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sadar (Mabbi O.P.) PS Case No. 411/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation, as per First Information Report, is that petitioner along with other accused persons fired upon the informant's companion, Md. Kalam from behind and fled away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement allegedly made by the petitioner in connection with Samastipur PS Case No. 249/2019 under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23913 of 2020(4) dt.10-11-2020 2/2 Section 395 of the IPC.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to the case diary, submits that petitioner has got criminal antecedents inasmuch as about eight criminal cases are pending against him from before. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of para-55 of the case diary, it would be evident that contract was accepted by the petitioner along with other co-accused persons for killing friend of the informant for sum of Rs. 6 Lacs out of which 2 Lacs was accepted by one Md. Gulam Ahamad Raza.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that petitioner has got criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

7. Petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today, if the trial does not show any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T