Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49870/2025dismissed

Pintu Manjhi @ Pintu Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-01Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49870 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya ====================================================== Pintu Manjhi @ Pintu Kumar Manjhi S/O Ramavtar Manjhi @ Ramotar Manjhi R/O Vill.- Mastpura, P.s.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 220 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 14.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 55425 of 2024, which reads as follows:

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in the present case registered for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of snatching Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand), a mobile phone and ornaments worth Rs. 1 Lakh from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49870 of 2025(2) dt.01-08-2025 2/2 informant.

4. The entire occurrence has been recorded in the CCTV camera. In the selfinculpatory statement, the petitioner has accepted his guilt. The petitioner is also accused in three more serious cases one of which is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is in jail since 02.03.2024.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is rejected."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only charge has been framed and no witness has been examined.

5. Considering the gravity of offence and the antecedent, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya is directed to ensure the appearance of the witnesses in the trial so that the trial is not delayed.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya forthwith through FAX or e-mail for its compliance.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T