The High Court dismissed the petitioner's second application for anticipatory bail. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in G.R. Ananda Babu, the Court held that a second anticipatory bail application filed in the same High Court after a prior rejection is not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38610 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2022 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Manish Kumar @ Shoshan S/o Anil Singh R/o vill - Shiv Kund, P.S. - Dharhara, Distt. - Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
3 02-08-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363/34, 364, 302, 201/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38610 of 2024(3) dt.02-08-2024 2/3
Allegedly, petitioner along with other accused persons killed the informant’s son by injecting overdose of ketamine and by pressing his neck.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case after conspiracy due to land dispute. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is admitted land dispute between the parties. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He was not arrested from the place of occurrence. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The whole prosecution story is false and fabricated. His name has been transpired in this case on the basis of the confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.
Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner was also involved in the murder of Virat Aryan @ Sonu in conspiracy with other accused persons on the pretext to call the deceased Virat Aryan @ Sonu in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38610 of 2024(3) dt.02-08-2024 3/3
birthday party and killed him.
Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
Guddu/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the earlier application was rejected by the same High Court, given the Supreme Court decision in G.R. Ananda Babu.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.R. Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamilnadu and AnotherRelied on¶24
G.R. Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamilnadu and Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 176 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manish Kumar @ Shoshan
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
