Akchhay Manjhi @ Akchhay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34839 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-685 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Akchhay Manjhi @ Akchhay Kumar S/o Bigan Ram Manjhi Resident of Village - Bhore, P.S. - Muffasil, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 30.01.2026 in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 685/2025, F.I.R. dated 14.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 329(3), 329(4) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Witch Protection Act, 1999.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons came to the house of the informant having sword and knife and brutally assaulted her husband to his head, back side, neck and other parts of the body due to which he received injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34839 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026 2/3 implicated in the present case. Although, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons along with 20-25 unknown accused persons in the F.I.R. From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is 12.07.2025 but the present F.I.R. was instituted on 14.07.2025 after delay of two days without giving any explanation of delay. The co-accused persons namely, Indal Manjhi, Balchand Manjhi, Dilchand Manjhi and Dhiraj Manjhi have been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3191 of 2026. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2026.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act against the petitioner and F.I.R. was instituted after delay of two days, 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34839 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026 3/3 each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Gaya Ji in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 685/2025, 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) atul/- U T