Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55699 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-522 Year-2024 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Manish Kumar S/o Hira Ram R/o Village- Mohammadpur Lalse,m P.S.- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Pathak, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Suman, Advocate For the State :

Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sakra P.S. Case No. 522 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2) of the BNS, 2023 and later on Sections 103, 238 and 61(2) of the BNS have been added.

3. As per allegation, in the evening of 10.10.2024, the informant's son proceeded to see Pilkhi fair on his motorcycle but did not return. The informant expressed his suspicion that some unfortunate incident might have occurred with his son.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. It has been further submitted that the deceased was seen with co-accused, Himanshu, travelling on a motorcycle and he was not seen with the petitioner. His further submission is that the tower

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55699 of 2025(6) dt.28-11-2025 2/2 location of the mobile of the petitioner was not found near the place of occurrence. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant as well as State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it appears from paragraph 28 of the case diary, that on the disclosure of spy, CCTV footage was detected in which co-accused Himanshu and the deceased were on one motorcycle and two persons, namely, Sahil and Manish (the petitioner) were on another motorcycle. From perusal of paragraph 125 of the case diary, it appears that on the disclosure made by the petitioner in his confessional statement the mobile set of the deceased and the knife from which the murder was committed, were recovered.

6. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T