Mantun Kumar @ Mantu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 07-01-2026

¶14

Heard Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, learned counsel for the

¶15

petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 08.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶17

According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that when he was returning from Amtar, in the meantime, the petitioners attacked him with katta and pistol on his head due to which, he sustained injuries and later went to P.H.C Pandarak for treatment.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84369 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026 2/3

¶20

petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. Although there is specific allegation against these petitioners that they have assaulted the informant but the injury report of the informant suggest that injury inflicted upon him is simple in nature and apart from that there is case and counter case between the parties.

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that petitioner no.1 carries one criminal antecedent and petitioner no2. has clean antecedent.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that injury inflicted upon the informant is simple in nature, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., 1^st Barh(Patna) in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84369 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026 3/3

¶24

i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶25

ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶26

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶27

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶28

Suruchi/-

¶29

U T

Mantun Kumar @ Mantu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantun Kumar @ Mantu Kumar 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

Srikant Pandey Vs Ruchi Singh

Nagendra Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Yasmin Aash @ Yasmina Parween @ Yasmina Parweena Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Usha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Mustak Dhuniya @ Mustaque Dhunea Vs The State of Bihar