Abhimanyu Kumar Singh @ Abhimanyu Singh @ Mannu @ Munna v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69628 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2025 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan ====================================================== Abhimanyu Kumar Singh @ Abhimanyu Singh @ Mannu @ Munna S/o Shivnath Singh R/o Vill- Baldih, P.S- Daraunda, Dist- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-09-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Daraunda P.S. Case No. 366 of 2025, dated 22.07.2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.07.2025 at about 07:45 P.M., while the informant was returning home after visiting a local fair, near the canal bridge, he was allegedly restrained by three persons including the petitioner. It is alleged that altercation and abuses took place, followed by some assault. It is further alleged that one of the co-accused, namely Monu Kumar Singh, fired from a pistol, which did not cause any
2/4 injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story the informant was returned home after looking fair, near the canal bridge he was allegedly restrained by three persons including the petitioner and an altercation and abuses having been taken place followed by some assault. The accused person namely Monu Kumar Singh is said to have fired with pistol on the informant, which caused injury. It has next been submitted that there is no injury, which is said to have been caused to anyone, which is apparent from the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. It is the only allegation of firing having been made by the petitioner upon the informant, which is said to have not sustained any injury. The petitioner has clean antecedent and is ready to cooperate with the investigation and has deep root in society and the allegations made against the petitioner are highly exaggerated and concocted only with a view to malign his reputation in society.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts that the allegation of firing having been made by the petitioner upon the informant, which is said to have not sustained any injury, petitioner has clean antecedent and is ready to cooperate with the investigation and has deep root in society and the allegations made against the petitioner
3/4 are highly exaggerated and concocted only with a view to malign his reputation in society, let the above named petitioner, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Siwan in connection with Daraunda P.S. Case No. 366 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner (s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner (s) 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 his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner (s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner (s) shall desist from committing any
4/4 criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) pravinkumar/- U T