Manoj Tuddu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88245 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.
Manoj Tuddu Son of Kari Tuddu @ Kare Tuddu Resident of VillageBangthi Ward No. 7, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea 2.
Lalita Devi Wife of Manoj Tuddu Resident of Village- Bangthi Ward No. 7, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Advocate Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Tarun Kumar Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Barhara Kothi P.S. Case no.214 of 2025 registered under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons including the two petitioners herein are said to have assaulted the father of the informant with lathi, danda etc., who subsequently died in course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88245 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 2/3 petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Co-accused Manisha Devi has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 15.1.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. no.88625 of 2025. The petitioners are in custody since 5.10.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioners besides being named in the FIR, there is direct allegation against them of having assaulted the father of the informant leading to his death. It is further submitted that by the aforesaid order dated 15.1.2026 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, so far as the application for bail of Vishwanath Tuddu is concerned, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation in the FIR together with the corresponding injury in the postmortem report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no.1 Manoj Tuddu on bail and the application so far as he is concerned is rejected.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner no.2 Lalita Devi on account of being a lady, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88245 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 3/3 allegations being general and omnibus in nature and grant of bail to co-accused Manisha Devi vide aforesaid order dated 15.1.2026, the petitioner no.2 Lalita Devi is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Barhara Kothi P.S. Case no.214 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. (Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T