Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65893 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2025 Thana- KAKO District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

Manish Kumar S/O Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Yadav R/o Vill.- Pachrukhiya, P.S.- Bhelewar, Dist.- Jehanabad 2.

Manish Kumar S/o Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Yadav R/o Vill.- Pachrukhiya, P.S.- Bhelewar, Dist.- Jehanabad 3.

Vikash Yadav S/O Ram Pravesh Yadav R/o Vill.- Pachrukhiya, P.S.- Bhelewar, Dist.- Jehanabad 4.

Shashi Ranjan S/o Amresh Yadav @ Amirak Prasad R/o Vill.- Pachrukhiya, P.S.- Bhelewar, Dist.- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Ms. Chandni Kumari, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-09-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 110 and 132 of the B.N.S..

3. As per prosecution case, informant, who is a government employee, alleges that while he was executing a government project, in the meantime, these petitioners, along with one another F.I.R. named accused persons, abused and assaulted him and created hindrance in discharge of official

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65893 of 2025(2) dt.18-09-2025 2/2 duties.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Allegation of abuse and assault is general and omnibus and no specific accusation of overt act has been alleged against these petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have got no criminal antecedents and Petitioner No. 1 has got one criminal antecedent in which he is already on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that they abused and assaulted informant while he was executing a government project and thus, created hindrance in discharge of official duties.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T