Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25649 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2021 Thana- MANIYARI District- Muzaffarpur

====================================================== Manoj Kumar Singh S/o- Late Ram Briksha Prasad Singh VillageJagdishpur, Ps- Maniyari, Dist- Muzaffarpur

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶7

Kailash Prasad S/o- Hardev Prasad Village- Barwan Po- Shyampur PsSangrampur Dist- East Champaran

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kanupriya Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Prasad, Adv.

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

3 04-11-2025

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶17

2. Learned counsel has filed supplementary affidavit (kept on the record) in which he has stated that the opposite party resides together with his brother as such the notice received by his brother be treated as valid service of notice upon the opposite party.

¶18

3 . The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Maniyari P.S. Case No. 288 of 2021 dated 07.09.2021 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 498A, 341, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the D.P. Act.

¶19

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the coaccused persons are alleged to have tortured the informant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25649 of 2025(3) dt.04-11-2025 2/3

¶21

dowry.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the informant and he has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of "Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182." Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023 . The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

¶23

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶24

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25649 of 2025(3) dt.04-11-2025 3/3

¶26

arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, West Muzaffarpur in connection with Maniyari P.S. Case No. 288 of 2021, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with further condition :

¶27

(i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.

¶28

8. If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement.

¶29

9. The application stands allowed.

¶30

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶31

Gautam/- U T

Manoj Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhaiya Kumar @ Omkar Nath Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Noor Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Ramakant Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Indra Narayan Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mofizul Hak Vs The State of Bihar