Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Manjhi @ Tunna Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58805 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2020 Thana- JAMOBAZAR District- Siwan ====================================================== SUMIT KUMAR @ SUMIT MANJHI @ TUNNA MANJHI S/O Late Chandeshwar Manjhi Resident of Village - Saidpur, P.S. - Jamo Bazar, District - Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Bardhan Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jamo Bazar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that while he was going to purchase articles for Tilak Ceremony of his sister, he was intercepted by the petitioner who snatched Rs. 51,000 from him and when the informant objected, the petitioner stabbed him in his stomach and ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58805 of 2021(2) dt.11-07-2022 2/2 date of occurrence is 21.02.2020 and the FIR has been instituted on 03.04.2020 as such there is an inordinate delay in instituting the FIR.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from the allegation as alleged in the FIR it would manifest that the informant was initially admitted in the PHC from there he was referred to Sadar Hospital and from there he was referred to PMCH and in PMCH on 02.03.2020 his fardbyan was recorded, it is next submitted that if there was delay in instituting the FIR the informant cannot be faulted with.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State and the fact that there is a direct allegation against the petitioner of stabbing the informant on his vital part of the body, the Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner.

His prayer for anticipatory bail is thus rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Shivam/- U T