Manoranjan Pandey @ Raja Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71243 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2025 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar ====================================================== Manoranjan Pandey @ Raja Pandey Son of Late Srimannarayan Pandey R/o Villaage - Banarpur, P.S. - Buxar(Muffasil), Dist. - Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Bihari Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Dimpal Kumari, Advocate Mr. Radha Krishna, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY CAV ORDER 13-03-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short 'B.N.S.') and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Vide order dated 09.06.2025, further added Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the informant was going to meet the authorities of Chausa Power Plant on his Mahindra Thar vehicle. He stopped near Chaurasia betel shop at Mohanpurwa for purchasing a bottle of water. As he reached near the right side of his vehicle, three persons on a
2/5 bike arrived, started firing due to which informant's brother Arjun Yadav received three gunshot injuries and fell down there. The miscreants proceeded towards Bechanpurwa. The injured was rushed to Sadar hospital, Buxar. He was referred to Trauma Center, Varansi. During course of reaching Trauma Center, Varanasi, Arjun Yadav (deceased) died. The deceased was a contractor in the power plant and it is alleged that the petitioner along with others due to competition between them have killed the deceased. It is further alleged that the petitioner has earlier threatened the deceased of dire consequences. The informant believes that this offence has been conducted by the accused persons and the petitioner is the master-mind.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2025 and he has having criminal antecedent of four cases. It has further been submitted that in this case there is no eye-witness. Save and except the confessional statement of the co-accused and the petitioner, there is nothing against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has become the victim of a well hatched and promulgated conspiracy which is evident from the fact that the First Information Report (in short 'FIR') has been instituted
3/5 after two days of the incident, i.e. the date of incident was 26.05.2025 but the date of lodging of the FIR was 28.05.2025. The police was informed about the occurrence on the same day and the inquest report was also prepared on the same day.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of this petitioner has been dragged in this case only on the basis of suspicion arising out of mobile tower location which is evident from the fact that during investigation, the investigating agency has stated in Paragraph '147' of the case diary that they have found the location of mobile at Patna on the date and time of the occurrence. The role of the informant himself is also important who is the eyewitness of the case who has neither identified those three persons who arrived and fired at the deceased, nor sure about the involvement of the petitioner in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the entire investigation is only based on mobile tower location and CDR of different mobile numbers which has no evidentiary value in terms of Forensic examination. In this case, police has arrested Toofani Gupta, Shivam Chaudhary and Sonu Gupta and they have accepted their guilt but investigating agency has developed a new concocted theory in connivance with the informant to
4/5 implicate the petitioner which is further strengthened by this fact that the FIR has been lodged after two days of the occurrence.
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the bail and it has been submitted that it is not a murder simplicitor rather the plan was well hatched and which is evident from the case diary that the tower locations and the communication between the shooters and the petitioner is consistently there. It is also clear that during investigation it has come that Dinesh and Nikhil are the persons who have murdered the deceased. This petitioner has been implicated as he was in constant touch with these two assailants.
7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, it is very strange that police has arrested three persons in this case Toofani Gupta, Shivam Chaudhary and Sonu Gupta but later on in fag end of the investigation this petitioner was added on the basis of tower location and CDR. Though in the FIR there is name of this petitioner and the informant of this case happens to be an eye-witness but he himself has not stated in clear tongues as to who has murdered the deceased and the delay which has been caused in lodging of the FIR creates serious doubt as the inquest of the deceased was prepared on the same day of the
5/5 occurrence.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall remain physically present on each and every date in the learned trial court. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Buxar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.03.2026 Transmission Date 13.03.2026