Mantun Kumar @ Mantu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84369 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2025 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Mantun Kumar @ Mantu Kumar Son of Late Dinesh Yadav @ Karu Yadav Resident of Village - Lemuabad, P.S.- Pandarak, District - Patna. 2.

Anant Kumar Son of Mullah Yadav Resident of Village - Lemuabad, P.S.- Pandarak, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 08.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that when he was returning from Amtar, in the meantime, the petitioners attacked him with katta and pistol on his head due to which, he sustained injuries and later went to P.H.C Pandarak for treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84369 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026 2/3 petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. Although there is specific allegation against these petitioners that they have assaulted the informant but the injury report of the informant suggest that injury inflicted upon him is simple in nature and apart from that there is case and counter case between the parties.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that petitioner no.1 carries one criminal antecedent and petitioner no2. has clean antecedent.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that injury inflicted upon the informant is simple in nature, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., 1st Barh(Patna) in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84369 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026 3/3 i. Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners 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 petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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) Suruchi/- U T