Santosh Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 11-07-2025

¶12

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for

¶13

the petitioner and Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh, learned APP for the State.

¶14

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 262 of 2024 dated 06.05.2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

3. The main submissions advanced by petitioner’s counsel are that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and in the FIR, the informant suspected four persons as being involved in killing of his son but did not reveal the name of this petitioner and during the course of investigation, one Lakhpatia Devi claimed to have witnessed the scuffle between the deceased and co-accused Ram Prakash Yadav @ Ram Pravesh Yadav @

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41723 of 2025(2) dt.11-07-2025 2/3

¶17

Damru Yadav but she also did not reveal the name of this petitioner as being involved in that scuffle. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been made accused mainly on the basis of statement of co-accused Ram Pravesh Yadav @ Damru Yadav given before the police, which has no evidentiary value and except this, there is no material to show the petitioner’s connection with the alleged crime of murder. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has fair and clean antecedent and has been languishing in jail since 11.02.2025 and against him, the investigation has been completed and one co-accused Guddu Singh @ Jitendra Singh has been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68280/2024.

¶18

4. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

¶19

5. Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced by petitioner’s counsel and taking into account the petitioner’s fair and clean antecedent, his custody period and completion of investigation against him and also the fact that the petitioner has taken the plea that except the statement of co-accused Ram Pravesh Yadav @ Damru Yadav recorded before the police, there is no material to show the petitioner’s involvement in the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41723 of 2025(2) dt.11-07-2025 3/3

¶21

alleged crime and the said plea has not been rebutted by learned APP, in my opinion, it is a fit case for bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 262 of 2024.

¶22

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶23

annu/-

¶24

U T

Santosh Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Manjhi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Kumar Ram @ Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramanad Mukhiya Vs The State of Bihar

Sujit Kumar @ Sujeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Balram Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Rajnish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar