Dismissed

Manoj Nat v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Aug 2022CR. MISC./25912/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral order dismissing a bail application by two accused persons facing murder charges. The court rejected bail due to serious specific allegations, delay in surrender, and criminal antecedents of one petitioner, directing removal of defects instead.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; petitioners to remove defects within four weeks of physical court commencement.

Manoj Nat Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25912 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2020 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Manoj Nat, Son of Harendar Nat.

¶5

Bimal Nat, Son of Gola Nat. Both are R/O Village- Dhenuki, P.S.- Pannapur, District- Saran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

======================================================

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Anuj, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit

¶13

======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 18-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶17

learned APP for the State.

¶18

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

¶19

The petitioners are in judicial custody in connection with Pannapur P.S. Case No.05 of 2020 instituted under Sections 302,120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

As per the allegation in the FIR, the informant’s husband had left the place on his motorcycle. Later his phone became switched off. She informed her relations and in the morning, it was informed that his husband’s body is lying on the road side and the motorcycle is also there. When she along with family members reached the spot, she found that her husband has been killed by sliting of his neck. Accordingly, the FIR was

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25912 of 2022(2) dt.18-08-2022 2/2

¶22

lodged against unknown.

¶23

From the perusal of the learned Sessions Judge order, it has been recorded that as per the confessional statement made by a co-accused Sukul Roy, specific role has been assigned to both the petitioners inasmuch as while Manoj Nut, the petitioner no.1 was holding the head of the informant’s husband, the allegation against petitioner not.2 is that it was he who slit the neck of the deceased.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid specific allegation that has been attributed to both the petitioners, coupled with the fact that the FIR was lodged in January 2020 but the petitioners choose to come in judicial net only in December 2021, as also the fact that the petitioner no.2 is having criminal antecedent, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners herein and the bail application is hereby rejected.

¶25

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶26

Prakash Narayan /- U T

Manoj Nat v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Nat v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anagad Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Kailash Mahton @ Kailash Mahto @ Kailu Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Raushan Vishwakarma Vs The State of Bihar

Sudesh Kumar @ Suddeshwar Singh Vs The State of Bihar