← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./91531/2025bail granted

Noor Hasan @ Mannu @ Monu Ansari @ Manu @ Monu v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-13Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91531 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- SIKARHATTA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Noor Hasan @ Mannu @ Monu Ansari @ Manu @ Monu S/O Md. Alamgir @ Md. Alamgir Ansari @ Md. Almagir R/O Village- Sikaharatta Kala, P.SSikaharatta, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sharda Kumari, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 07.10.2025, in connection with Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 14.04.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 103(1), 3(5) of B.NS.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that has assaulted to the deceased by means of iron rod on the upper portion of his neck.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91531 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026 2/3 not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the petitioner has assaulted to the deceased by means of iron rod on the upper portion of this neck. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is 07.04.2025 but the present F.I.R. was instituted on 14.04.2025 after delay of one week without giving any explanation of delay and apart from that the deceased has died on 02.05.2025 and the police after investigation submitted chargesheet under Sections 105, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2)(3)(5) of B.N.S. on 30.11.2025 which suggests that the police after investigation has not found case true under Section 103(1) of B.N.S. against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2025.

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 the police has not found case true under Section 103(1) of B.N.S. and the police filed chargesheet under Sections 105, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2)(3)(5) of B.N.S., 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 7th Additioinal Chief Judicial Magistrarte,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91531 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026 3/3 Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 69 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