Mannu Kumar Mehta @ Mannu Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62051 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2023 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul ====================================================== Mannu Kumar Mehta @ Mannu Mehta S/O Krishna Kumar Mehta @ Ramu Mehta Resident of Village- Tengarha Ward No. 2, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, DistrictSupaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 85331 of 2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2024. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case the petitioner was directed to file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record substantial proof to show that the petitioner is not absconding in any of the cases mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the petition.

3. It is further submitted that, in fact, there were eight criminal cases in which the petitioner's name appeared. Out of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62051 of 2025(5) dt.11-03-2026 2/3 the said eight criminal cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted in three cases and, therefore, disclosure was made by the pairvikar in paragraph no. 3 of the main petition that only five criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. However, in the supplementary affidavit, detailed disclosure has been made and it has been categorically stated in different paragraphs that the petitioner is not absconding in any of the criminal cases pending against him.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that on the earlier occasion a report with regard to the present stage of the trial was called for. He further submits that he has verified the statements made in paragraph no. 3 of the petition as well as in the supplementary affidavit, and it has correctly been mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner that disclosure has been made with regard to five pending cases, whereas in three criminal cases the petitioner has already been acquitted. The details of those three cases are different from the cases which are presently pending.

5. From the perusal of the report received from the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Supaul, it appears that charge has already been framed, and out of six prosecution witnesses, three witnesses have been examined and cross-examined.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62051 of 2025(5) dt.11-03-2026 3/3

6. In the present facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, be granted bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) as mentioned in Section 2(1) (d) of the BNSS, 2023 to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Supaul in connection with S.T. Case No. 333 of 2024 arising out of Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (i) one of the bailor should be the family member of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bonds by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) If the petitioner found involved in similar cases in future, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T