Manish Kumar @ Manish Rawani @ Manish Kamkar @ Mangara Kamkar @ Manish Chandravanshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32274 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2024 Thana- MURAR District- Buxar ====================================================== Manish Kumar @ Manish Rawani @ Manish Kamkar @ Mangara Kamkar @ Manish Chandravanshi S/o Tuntun Kamkar @ Tuntun Rawani R/o Village - Chaugai, PS - Murar, District - Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 07.07.2024 in connection with Murar P.S. Case No. 52 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of the BNS.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per informant he has a shop of Mobile in Chaugai where two Laptops are in the shop where he doing work of online and cash withdrawal. On 05. 07. 2024 at about 7.50 evening Manish Kamkar @ Mangara Kamkar along with his two fried came there on that time his cousin brother Sonu Kumar was in shop and after some altercation after showing the Katta they fled

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32274 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/3 away after looting the / laptop.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that due to previous dispute the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2024.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of eight cases other than the present case but fairly submits that out of eight cases petitioner is on bail in five cases and in two cases he has been acquitted and one case is pending for consideration before the competent court of law.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the period of custody, 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 the learned J.M., 1st Class Court No. 4, Buxar in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32274 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 3/3 connection with Murar P.S. Case No. 52 of 2024 subject to 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his 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 above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T