Rama Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89118 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2024 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Rama Manjhi S/o- Mandan Manjhi 2.
Prabhu Nath Manjhi S/o- Madan Manjhi 3.
Shiv Nath Manjhi S/o- Madan Manjhi 4.
Madan Manjhi @ Bhadan Manjhi S/o- Jethu Manjhi. All R/o village- Bhawanibigha Ps- Mohanpur Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2026 Heard Mr.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mohanpur P.S.Case No.136 of 2024, FIR dated 18.06.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,323,308/34 of IPC.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that they alongwith other co-accused persons unanimously assaulted the informant due to which he received head injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it appears from the FIR itself that due to admitted land dispute the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89118 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 2/3 present occurrence had taken place. Although the petitioners are named in the FIR but from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the petitioners rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioners. Although the informant has received the injury but the injury report of the informant suggests that the injury is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 4 carries one more case other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioners are on bail in the said case, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition. Petitioner No.2 has clean antecedent.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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 learned A.C.J.M.-II, Sherghati at Gaya in connection with Mohanpur P.S.Case No.136 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89118 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 3/3 the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS,2023 and with other following conditions:- (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 bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioners tamper 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 antecedents, 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) Nitesh/- U T