Manoj Saw @ Manoj Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38289 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2024 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Manoj Saw @ Manoj Sahu, aged about 28 years, Gender-Male, S/o OP Saw @ Opindar Sahu @ Opindar Saw, R/o Village- Mahe, Ward No 16, PSSinghiya @ Sindhiya, Distt- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Informant : M/S. Bijay Bhushan Prasad and Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocates For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Singhiya @ Sindhiya P.S. Case No. 235 of 2024 dated 30.12.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant, namely, Sapna Kumari, was married with Pitamber Sahu and in the marriage, the informant gave gifts to his daughter and later on his daughter started living with her husband peacefully. It is further alleged that on demand, the informant gave a tractor to his son-in-law, namely, Pitamber

2/4 Sahu, but anyhow, the brother of the informant's son-in-law, namely, Manoj Sahu (petitioner), took his tractor from him on his name, due to which, always quarrel was going on between his family members. It is further alleged that on 30.12.2024, the informant got an information that his son-in-law Pitamber Sahu committed suicide, but when he went there no any dead body was found there, hence, he doubted that Manoj Sahu (petitioner), Rohit Sahu, O.P. Sahu, Ramchandra Sahu, Gita Devi, Dana Devi and some unknown have committed murder of his son-in-law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner is separate in mess and property from his family including the son-in-law of the informant. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, it has come that the informant has refused to do the Bidai of his daughter with the petitioner as his daughter was in love affair with other person and she used to talk frequently from that person for which the deceased was perturbed and

3/4 lastly he committed suicide but the informant has cleverly or cunningly twisted the story of suicide of his son-in-law at the instance of the petitioner and his family members to save his skin and his daughter which has also come in paragraph no. 34 of the case diary. The petitioner has been made accused in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement of the coaccused before the police which has got no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the elder brother of the deceased who is also an accused in the present case, namely, Rohit Saw, in his confessional statement recorded in paragraph no. 29 of the case diary, has stated that the deceased himself has committed suicide in his house.

It is further submitted that the other co-accused person, namely, Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Saw @ Rohit Sahu, has already been granted bail by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 39797 of 2025 vide order dated 09.07.2025. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. He is in custody in this case since 23.03.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

4/4 of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. Ist Class, Rosera or his/her successor in connection with Singhiya @ Sindhiya P.S. Case No. 235 of 2024.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U.K./- U T