Patna High CourtCR. MISC./87400/2025bail granted

Samdeo Manjhi @ Shyamdeo Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-19Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87400 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya ====================================================== Samdeo Manjhi @ Shyamdeo Manjhi S/o Dallu Manjhi R/o Village- Bardiha Tola, Dukhi Bigha, P.S- Tankuppa, Dist- Gaya Ji. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushp Raj Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Pushp Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 20.07.2025, in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 140(1), 137(2), 303(2), 152, 351(2) of the B.N.S.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that when she and her family members were sleeping in her house, in the meantime, petitioner along with other co-accused persons entered her house and began assaulting her family members and threw her father-in-law from roof and also took him away. It is further alleged that the accused persons took away household articles and snatched golden locket from the neck of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87400 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Although, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and the co-accused person namely Sugiya Devi @ Sunaina Devi against whom the similar allegation has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 86948 of 2025. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against him in the F.I.R. and similarly situated co-accused person has been granted bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. IV, Gaya in connection with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87400 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026 3/3 Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-

(1) Petitioner 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 his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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) Ibrar//- U T