Rudal Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59709 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-514 Year-2020 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Rudal Manjhi S/O Chhotan Manjhi R/O Village- Gowaychak, P.S- Naubatpur, Distt.- Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ghanshyam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 514 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

As per prosecution case, allegation against the petitioner is of committing murder of her wife. 4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 01-07-2021. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There is no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59709 of 2023(4) dt.20-01-2025 2/2 eye witness to the occurrence. The petitioner and deceased were married for more than 15 years and were happily reading their lives. No motive for the alleged occurrence has been disclosed in the FIR.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is the main assailant and the allegation of the informant is corroborated by the postmortem report. Witnesses have supported the prosecution case. 7.

A report was called for from the trial court and it is reported that one witness has been examined in this case and trial is likely to be concluded within a period of nine months. 8.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, there being direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected.

9.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of nine months.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T