Patna High CourtCR. MISC./71330/2025bail granted

Santosh Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-23Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71330 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2020 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Santosh Manjhi S/O Mahesh Manjhi R/O Vill.- Janar, P.S.- Aurai, Dist.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Lakshman Lal Pandey. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. Lakshman Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 19.10.2024 in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 142 of 2020, F.I.R. dated 13.08.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(b) and 120(b) of the I.P.C.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons used to torture the informant's daughter due to non-fulfillment of their demand and later on this petitioner allegedly assaulted the informant's daughter due to which she died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

2/4 implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R that the victim died in her matrimonial house and petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that he is husband of the deceased. He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R it appears that the informant is not the eye witness to the alleged occurrence and she has stated that the petitioner after committing the crime in question escape from the place of occurrence and met one Arvind Sada who happens to be the brother-in-law of the informant and uncle of the deceased but he has not been examined by the police.

Apart from the aforesaid, Visho Sada who is father of the victim and husband of the informant has also not been examined by the police and one Sanjana Kumari who has first saw the dead body of the deceased has also not been examined by the police. Except the aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2024.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and there is

3/4 specific and direct allegation against the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner has confessed his guilt in the present occurrence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail 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 District Judge-11, Darbhanga in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 142 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T