Suresh Manjhi @ Aamchand Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81270 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2019 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran ====================================================== Suresh Manjhi @ Aamchand Manjhi, S/O Lt. Ramjeet Manjhi, R/O Dih Chapiya, P.S- Taraiya, Distt.- Chhapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Salini, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Khalid Quraishi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 711 of 2019 arising out of Taraiya P.S. Case No. 117 of 2019 instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2019 at about 5.30 A.M. one Sikandar Manjhi was urinating in the north of his house at that time, Suresh Manjhi started abusing Sikandar. When Sikandar objected, he was being assaulted by slaps and fists. The villagers any how consoled the matter. It is further alleged that Suresh Manjhi went out to his house, came

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81270 of 2024(4) dt.04-03-2025 2/3 with knife and assaulted Sikandar Manjhi with knife due to which he died.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in this case charges were framed in the year 2021 but till today trial has not been completed. A statement has been made in para-3 of the petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He is languishing in judicial custody for more than five years.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R., it transpires that there is direct allegation of stabbing against the petitioner.

6. A report from the trial Court has been called from perusal of which, it transpires that out of eight witnesses, five have been examined.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

8. Petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81270 of 2024(4) dt.04-03-2025 3/3 bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded.

9. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T