Rudal Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶11

5 08-07-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶14

grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.994 of 2025, arising out of Rajgir P.S. Case no.472 of 2023 registered under section 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, the informant states

¶16

that his daughter was married to the petitioner herein about 5 months ago. The petitioner used to insist that the daughter of the informant should get Rs.4,000/- from her parents. On not getting the same, she was abused and assaulted. It is further stated that ultimately the informant received information that his daughter had been killed. The informant states that he is convinced that his daughter’s sister-in-law ( gotani ) and the petitioner have a hand in the occurrence.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10020 of 2026(5) dt.08-07-2026 2/3

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason that he happens to be the husband of the deceased. From the material that has transpired in course of investigation it has come that the daughter of the informant was not happy in her sasural , however it was the petitioner’s insistence that she should stay there. The petitioner is in custody since 30.6.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶19

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The occurrence is said to have taken place only 5 months after the marriage and as per the postmortem report the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging.

¶20

A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 15.6.2026 of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge 2^nd , Nalanda at Biharsharif charge was framed against the petitioner on 28.1.2026 and inspite of issuance of summons and bailable warrants, no witness is appearing in the case nor any witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10020 of 2026(5) dt.08-07-2026 3/3

¶23

taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R., the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the petitioner having remained in custody since 30.6.2025, charge having been framed in the learned trial Court on 28.1.2026 however no witness appearing to depose on behalf of the prosecution inspite of issuance of summons and bailable warrants, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.994 of 2025 (arising out of Rajgir P.S. Case no.472 of 2023) on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge 2^nd , Nalanda at Biharsharif.

¶24

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶25

avinash/-

¶26

U T

Rudal Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudal 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

Meera Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar @ Abhishek Diwakar Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar Vs Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts

Bhola Kumar @ Amrendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mantun Paswan @ Muntun Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Irshad @ Md. Kari Vs The State of Bihar