Dibbu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50634 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -358 Year- 2013 Thana -LAKHISARAI District- LAKHISARAI ====================================================== Dibbu Manjhi S/o- Late Pairu Manjhi, resident of Village- Mokama Pokharpur, P.S.- Mokama, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Prasad (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 364/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the deceased had gone to his Susural with the petitioner and one Ranjit Manjhi on 16.09.2013. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter returned to the house of the deceased with the sleepers of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 2500/- and stated to the family members that the deceased disappeared from the Kiul Station. Subsequently, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from the river Kiul. In the First Information Report, the petitioner has been named by the father of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50634 of 2014 (4) dt.03-03-2015 P2/2 the deceased on the basis of hear-say. It seems that the Police submitted charge-sheet after completion of investigation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that there is no material collected by the Police in course of investigation to implicate this petitioner with the offence. He has also drawn my attention to paragraph No. 41 of the Case Diary to submit that wife of the deceased has made specific statement that co-accused Pathan Manjhi had killed the deceased. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has referred to paragraph No. 44 of the Case Diary that petitioner had also accompanied the deceased and his involvement cannot be ruled out.

I do not find any material in paragraph No. 44 of the Case Diary on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner was also involved in the commission of offence.

In view of the above, let the petitioner Dibbu Manjhi be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J. Vth, Lakhisarai in connection with Lakhisarai P. S. Case No. 358/2013.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Saif/- U T