Mantu @ Mantu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2891 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-596 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Mantu @ Mantu Kumar Son of Tulli Yadav @ Ram Swarath Yadav @ Ram Sowarath Yadav R/o Village - Umrai Bigha, P.S. - Makhdumpur, Dist. - Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar Ojha Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Mr. Deep Shekar Mr. Mritunjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 308(2), 308(5), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S.

3. Petitioner along with other accused persons are said to have demanded ransom from the informant and forcibly took away Rs. 30,000/- as well as gold chain and ring.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made an accused in this case only on account of some differences which occurred with the manager of toll booth and false allegations have been attributed against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2891 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 28.08.2025 and the charge-sheet has been submitted.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail on the ground that there is direct allegation of extortion coupled with assault made against the petitioner which has resulted in grievous injury to the informant and also the petitioner bears as many as 10 criminal antecedents.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the nature of allegations coupled with the injury as also the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 596 of 2025.

7. However, in case no substantial progress is made in the case within a reasonable frame of time, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail. (Soni Shrivastava, J) devendra/- U T