Balvir Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74812 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2019 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

Balvir Manjhi, Son of Naresh Manjhi, Resident of Village - Pakariya (Mushahari), P.S. Muffasil, District - Nawada. 2.

Awadh Manjhi, Son of Vilash Manjhi @ Rambilash Manjhi, Resident of Village - Pakariya (Mushahari), P.S. Muffasil, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners are accused in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 171 of 2019, registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada.

The accusation is that on 14.06.2019, Bisheshwar Manjhi, husband of the informant, Sabuja Devi, had gone to do the work of labourer near N.H.31, village Amarpur, where her husband was assaulted by Balbir Manjhi (petitioner no.1) and Awadh Manjhi (petitioner no.2) through bricks and stone causing injury at his head. The persons present there informed to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74812 of 2019(3) dt.19-03-2020 2/2 her and her husband was rushed at village Doctor, where he died in course of treatment at 3 P.M. on 15.06.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant is not the eye witness of the occurrence. Further submission is that petitioners have no criminal antecedent and are in custody since 04.07.2019.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner with submission that witnesses in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the case diary, have claimed as eye witnesses of the occurrence and supported the prosecution case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of bail stands rejected for the present. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T