Manish Kumar Meghnath @ Manish Kumar @ Meghnath v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30691 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-655 Year-2023 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Manish Kumar Meghnath @ Manish Kumar @ Meghnath S/o Ramchandra Ray R/o Village- Makundpur, P.S.- Patory, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 58082 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-655 Year-2023 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Anurodh Kumar @ Anrudh Kumar @ Aunrodh Kumar @ Anurudh Kumar S/o Musafir Rai @ Mosaphir Ray R/o village - Chakjalal , Police Station - Tajpur (Halai OP) , District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30691 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rita Verma, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 58082 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-08-2025 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.
2. Considering the fact that both the matters are arising out of the same P.S. case and earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioners were turned down by this Court, hence both the applications are being heard together and disposed off by this
2/4 common order.
3. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of regular bail, who are in custody in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 655 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Earlier, taking note of the materials available on record, especially considering the nature of crime and the identification of the petitioners, on the basis of CCTV footage by the employees of the bank as well as the criminal antecedent, the prayer for bail of the petitioners were rejected.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that since the prayer for bail of the petitioners was rejected on merit, therefore, they are not making any submission with regard to the merit of the case. However, this fact cannot be ignored that the petitioners have been incarcerated in custody for about one year and eight months and the case record is pending for framing of the charge. It is further contended that, be that as it may, the offences punishable is triable by the Magistrate and, moreover, the petitioners have already incarcerated for a substantive period and they undertakes that they will fully co-operate in the proceeding of the Court.
3/4
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that ample materials have been collected during the course of investigation, pointing towards their complicity in the crime.
7. Having heard the submissions set-forth by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the period of incarceration, as also the fact that the offence is triable by the Magistrate, let the petitioners, named above, be released on bail, after framing of the charge, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Samastipur in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 655 of 2023, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioners will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) They will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) They will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates
4/4 without any cogent reason, their bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v) The court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.
(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U T