Sadhu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72650 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2024 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Sadhu Manjhi Son of Akhilesh Manjhi Resident of Village- Siyarampur, PSPaliganj, District- Patna 2.
Arvind Manjhi Son of Jagat Manjhi Resident of Village- Siyarampur, PSPaliganj, District- Patna 3.
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Manjhi Son of Hari Kishun Manjhi Resident of Village- Telharai, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Distt.- Patna, at present Resident of Village- Siyarampur, PS- Paliganj, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Saurav Kumar Suman For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State, Mr. Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her daughter was married to Chandan Manjhi and out of the wedlock, two children were born and for sometimes she lived happily, but thereafter the accused persons started torturing her for dowry, further, on 21.02.2024, they
2/4 killed her daughter and thereafter, called and informed that her health is deteriorating and is admitted in a hospital, accordingly, the informant along with her family members went to her daughter's matrimonial home where unknown accused assaulted and the house was found locked, thereafter police was informed and the dead body of the deceased was found in a sack near Sikariya Bridge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant and was not named in the FIR and their name transpired based on confessional statement of Ramgati Manjhi in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that petitioners are not related to the husband of the deceased in any manner rather are co-villagers as such it does not appear probable that the petitioners would have participated in the occurrence when they had no interest in the affairs of the husband of the deceased or his family members. It is also submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
5. The learned APP for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
3/4 counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna in connection with Paliganj P. S. Case No.75 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioners, despite giving assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the investigation or are not presenting themselves as and when required, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners after recording reasons.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station through the learned trial Court.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks permission to make rectification in the description of all the petitioners as it has been submitted that inadvertently the district has been recorded as Aurangabad
4/4 when it ought to have been Patna.
10. Permission is accorded.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T