Manibhusan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38728 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Manibhusan Kumar S/o Late Feku Ray R/o Village - Mahesha Farrukhpur, Larkaniya Tola, P.S - Mahindwara, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms.Deepshikha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 13.11.2025 in connection with Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 356 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126, 127(2), 109, 61(2) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case the brief fact is like that, the above said FİR was registered on the Fardbeyan of Kusheshwar Mandal (hereinafter called informant) as per his fardbeyan dated 16.09.2025 he stated that the accused persons whose name are mentioned in the FIR are residents of his nearby village and on 16.09.2025. The accused persons including petitioner has through gunshot fire brutally injured Lalit Mandal son of informant and consequently the present FIR was lodged in a Runnisaidpur PS Case No. 356/2025 น/ร. 115(2), 126, 127(2), 109, 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and 27 of Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38728 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that it appears from the FIR that informant is not an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act or firing is attributed against the petitioner rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2025.
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 out of eight cases petitioner is on bail in five cases.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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 Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Sitamarhi in connection with Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 356 of 2025, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38728 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 3/3 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