Monu Kumar @ Monu Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.122 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- PACHMAHLA District- Patna ====================================================== Monu Kumar @ Monu Singh S/O Pramod Singh R/O Village- Nauranga, P.SPachmahla, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seek regular bail in Pachmahla P.S. Case No. 3 of 2025 dated 22-01-2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 308(5), 308(4), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant was working as a Munshi (clerk) at a brick kiln situated in Khutaha Dih, owned by Mantu Singh, and was receiving a monthly remuneration of Rs. 13,000. It is further alleged that from 01.06.2022, the functioning of the brick kiln were taken over by petitioner and Sonu Kumar. As both persons were of a criminal background, the informant resigned from his job. However, they began pressuring him to resume his duties as a
2/4 clerk and through intimidation, compelled him to continue work. They avoided paying his full salary, providing only partial payments while compelling him to work. When the informant demanded his full wages, they gave threats. Upon his refusal to continue work, petitioner along with co-accused, Sonu Kumar, Saurav Kumar, Gautam Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar, all armed with deadly weapons, entered the informant's house and tried to forcibly take him outside. When the informant's wife, Heera Devi, resisted, they abused her and assaulted her with the butt of a pistol, causing serious injuries to her face, lips, and teeth. After assaulting, accused Sonu Kumar demanded a ransom of Rs. 60 lakhs, threatening to kill the family if the amount was not paid. Before departing, they locked the house and warned that if the ransom was not paid within a week, the entire family would be killed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged against five persons, including the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the allegations, so far as the petitioner is concerned, are general and omnibus in nature. It is further
3/4 submitted that the petitioner and co-accused Sonu Kumar are full brothers and with effect from 01.06.2022, the functioning of the brick kiln was taken over by the petitioner along with his brother Sonu Kumar. It is also submitted that co-accused Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Singh has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21740 of 2025 and co-accused Kanhaiya Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar has also been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 49283 of 2025. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.09.2025 and has 12 criminal cases pending against him.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM- III, Barh, in connection with Pachmahla P.S. Case No. 3 of 2025, subject to the following conditions: - (i) that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every
4/4 date fixed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the court below, (ii) that one of the bailors will be his own blood relation, preferably father, mother, brother, sister and or his wife, (iii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is made accused in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of misuse (iv) that if the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail and (v) that the petitioner will appear before the SHO of concerned PS in the first week of each month till conclusion of the trial.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Khatim Reza, J) shyambihari/- U T