Vinod Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86091 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-595 Year-2025 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Vinod Manjhi S/o- Nathun Manjhi R/v- Kachanpur (Kehari) Ps- Bodhgaya Dist- Gaya 2.
Pramod Manjhi S/o- Nathun Manjhi R/v- Kachanpur (Kehari) Ps- Bodhgaya Dist- Gaya 3.
Jitendra Manjhi S/o- Nathun Manjhi R/v- Kachanpur (Kehari) Ps- Bodhgaya Dist- Gaya 4.
Eshwar Manjhi @ Kishor Kumar S/o- Vinod Manjhi R/v- Kachanpur (Kehari) Ps- Bodhgaya Dist- Gaya 5.
Surendra Manjhi S/o- Suresh Manjhi R/v- Kachanpur (Kehari) PsBodhgaya Dist- Gaya 6.
Maniye Manjhi S/o- Visheswar Manjhi R/v- Kachanpur (Kehari) PsBodhgaya Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
2/4 alleges that on 01.08.2025 at 10 P.M. while returning from work, he went to meet his friend Vinod, when other named accused persons including the petitioners came and abused him asking why he has come to the house of Vinod, thereafter Vinor, Pramod, Ishwar and Maniya with rod and Jeetendra and Surendra with lathi assaulted him causing injury on head, leg and hand along with swelling on chest, thereafter they also tied his leg and hand, further 5-7 unknown accused including women also assaulted him, it is next alleged that on account of assault, the informant became unconscious and the next day his family members along with police came searching and was admitted in hospital in an unconscious state.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that he had come to the house of Vinod who meet him, where other named accused persons including the petitioners came and asked him why he has come and thereafter assaulted him but then it is submitted that the allegation does not even remotely discloses the reason of the occurrence. It is also submitted that though it is alleged that
3/4 informant was assaulted by the accused persons leading to an unconscious and thereafter he was admitted in the hospital but then the place from where the informant was recovered and taken to the hospital is also not recorded in the FIR. It is further submitted that the date of occurrence is 01.08.2025 and the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 05.08.2025 and thereafter the FIR came to be instituted on 17.08.2025. It is submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded after four days of the occurrence, when it is alleged in the FIR that the police and his family members recovered him in an unconscious state and was admitted in a hospital but then the FIR also does not disclose that informant remained unconscious for four days.
It is next submitted that it is not the case of the informant that accused persons came and assaulted him rather it is being alleged that he came to the house of Vinod, where other accused persons were also present and they assaulted him but then allegation of assault is also not specific. It is next submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is not inspiring confidence more-so when petitioners are persons with clean antecedent. It is next submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
4/4
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No.595/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioners despite giving assurance to this court are not co-operating in the investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T