Amar Manjhi @ Amar Kumar Manjhi @ Amar Kumar Manjh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79188 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2023 Thana- TARABARI District- Araria ====================================================== Amar Manjhi @ Amar Kumar Manjhi @ Amar Kumar Manjh S/O Visheshwar Manjhi R/o Village- Baturwari (Pategana) P.S.- Tararbari, District-Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madhav Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-01-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Tarabari P. S. Case No.137 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case but inadvertently at Para-3, it has been recorded that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that in his absence, a theft took place in his house and accused committed theft of articles worth Rs.7 Lacs.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79188 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026 2/2 the FIR was against against known and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that petitioner works in Delhi and was not even present at the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence.

5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that though in the anticipatory bail application, it is pleaded that petitioner works in Delhi, but then, it is a bald statement, no address where the petitioner resides is given, nor the kind of work, the petitioner is discharging at Delhi is pleaded. It is next submitted that it is a case of looting the house in absence of the informant and the investigation of the case is continuing.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T