Banti Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41019 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Banti Manjhi S/o Buttu Manjhi @ Sameer Manjhi Resident of Village - Beiragi (Bhui Toli), P.S.- Delha, District - Gaya 2.
Pramod Chaudhary S/o Rajdev Chaudhary Resident of Village - Beiragi (Bhui Toli), P.S.- Delha, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Sanjana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 21 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On the given date and time of occurrence while the informant had gone to play cricket, in the meanwhile, some criminals along with 10-12 in numbers came there and started assaulting and snatched the informant's mobile and golden locket. The accused persons also brutally assaulted the informant by means of bat and fist due to which Sagar Raj and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41019 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 2/3 Ankit Raj have sustained serious injuries.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that there is no allegation that it is the petitioners who have assaulted the informant and Sagar Raj, rather it is only alleged that they were also present there along with other unknown co-accused persons. So far the injuries which have allegedly sustained to the informant and Sagar Raj are concerned, the same are simple in nature. Moreover, the FIR has not been instituted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, rather instituted under Sections 341, 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the petitioner no. 1 bears four criminal antecedents and for this reason alone he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of the respective parties and taking note of the omnibus nature of allegation, coupled with the fact that there is delay of two days in lodging of the FIR, besides the genesis of the occurrence, let the petitioners above named be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41019 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 3/3 receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Gaya in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 21 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners. However, in case the petitioner no. 2, who is carrying criminal antecedent and is found indulge in such activities in future or in any other crime, the State or the informant shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of his bail.
(Harish Kumar, J) sumit/- U T