Rambabu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36030 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-385 Year-2022 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Rambabu Manjhi, S/O Karu Manjhi R/O Village- Manpur, Suraj Pokhar, Bhuin Toli, P.S- Buniadganj, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Soni Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 24-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Buniadganj P.S. Case No. 385/2022, lodged on 19.11.2022 under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)/26 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner from whose possession the arms have been recovered along with the other articles.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other articles are basically mobile phone of the petitioner. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36030 of 2023(2) dt.24-06-2023 2/3 further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2022 and apart from the present case, the petitioner is accused in seven other cases, but in all the cases, he has been granted bail. Moreover, the chargesheet has already been filed in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that arms has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has serious criminal antecedent.

6. Upon specific query from the counsel for the petitioner whether the charge has been framed or not, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware about the fact whether the charge has been framed or not.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in connection with Buniadganj P.S. Case No. 385 of 2022, pending before the learned ACJM-VIII, Gaya, is hereby rejected.

9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after framing of the charge. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail after framing of the charge by imposing its own condition so that the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36030 of 2023(2) dt.24-06-2023 3/3 may not evade appearance on the date fixed.

10. With this observation, the bail application stands disposed of.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T