Sammi Manjhi @ Summi Manjhi @ Shambhu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79983 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2018 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna ====================================================== SAMMI MANJHI @ SUMMI MANJHI @ SHAMBHU MANJHI Son of Nanhak Manjhi Resident of Village - Akauna (Pakauli), P.O. and P.S.- Punpun, Distt - Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 07-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in this case is seeking regular bail in connection with Punpun P.S. Case No. 215 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the FIR itself it will appear that there had been a quarrel among the children and in the said occurrence it is alleged that the wife of the informant went there, this petitioner pushed her because of which she fell down and got injury on her forehead which ultimately proved fatal and she died.

Learned counsel submits that it would not be a case covered under Section 302 IPC inasmuch as one simple push to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79983 of 2019(3) dt.07-01-2020 2/2 the wife of the informant is said to have caused the injury because of which she died. The petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2019.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for regular bail. It is submitted that this petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, it is he who had given the push to the wife of the informant because of which she fell down and got injury which proved fatal for her life and she died. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody only since 31.03.2019, therefore, at this stage the prayer for bail may be refused.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the wife of the informant died due to push given by this petitioner and then the petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2019 only, for the present, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. His prayer is thus, refused. The petitioner may, however, renew his prayer for bail after a reasonable time.

Let the trial be expedited.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U T