Patna High Court – Orders
Mithlesh Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar on 2 July, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89050 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2024 Thana- MAHKAR District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Mithlesh Manjhi S/o Surendra Manjhi
2. Rohit Manjhi S/o Barhan Manjhi
3. Barhan Manjhi S/o Late Saryug Manjhi
All residents of Village - Adampur, P.S. - Mahkar, Distt.- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 02-07-2025
Heard Mr. Aryan Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mr. Ajit
Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with
Mahkar P.S.Case No.66 of 2024, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 342, 323,
307, 302, 504, 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code .
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR; on the
allegation of witchcraft, the petitioners along with the other
accused persons armed with tangi, pasuli, khanti, iron rod,
clubs and sticks, arrived at the door of the informant; after that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89050 of 2024(3) dt.02-07-2025
2/6
they entered into the house of the informant and started
assaulting the informant with a common intention to kill him, in
which the father of the informant namely, Jagdish Manjhi
received grievous injuries. After this, Jagdish Manjhi was
locked in Anganwari Kendra by accused persons and the door
was locked. Thereafter, the co-villagers unlocked the door of
Anganwari and took him to Primary Health Centre for better
treatment and after that he was referred to ANMCH, where he
died on the way.
4. Mr. Aryan Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the
petitioners of committing murder of the father of the informant
with a common intention is baseless on the ground that the
Fardayan was lodged on 28.03.2024 at 9:00 A.M., while the
inquest report was prepared between 9:00 to 11:00 A.M. and on
28.03.2024 at 11.15 A.M. the postmortem was conducted. As
such, after seven hours of alleged Fardbeyan and preparation of
the inquest report, the information was given to the Police
Station at 04.15 P.M. on 28.03.2024 and the FIR was lodged.
The FIR was not sent immediately within 24 hours and it was
sent after four days of the alleged offence. In this case, the
informant is the eye witness, who is the son of the deceased. In
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89050 of 2024(3) dt.02-07-2025
3/6
front of other family members and the informant, who claims
himself to be the eye witness, the deceased was dragged out of
the house by altogether 12 persons and no one had come to help
the deceased. Family members of the deceased has not received
injury. No reason has been assigned whether there was enmity
between them, which led to commission of murder of the
deceased, who is the father of the informant.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the
involvement of these petitioners in the alleged commission of
the offence is also imaginary because the informant, who claims
himself to be eye witness, has given information that his father
was dragged out of the house, after brutally assaulting him, and
he was locked inside the Anganwari Centre, which is run by a
female Sevika/Sahayika and after the death of the deceased, FIR
was lodged, which is contrary to the provision of Section 173
BNSS. All the witnesses are vested interest witnesses. On these
grounds, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that similarly situated four co-accused persons,
namely, Umesh Manjhi, Sanjeev Manjhi, Nanhu Manjhi and
Sukari Devi have been granted pre-arrest bail, vide order dated
29.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67299 of 2025 wherein this
Court has observed that in view of the general and omnibus
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89050 of 2024(3) dt.02-07-2025
4/6
allegation and there being no direct allegation of assault against
them, the petitioners were directed to be released on pre-arrest
bail. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, they also
claim parity considering the offence as alleged against them.
6. Per contra, Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Singh, learned
counsel has tendered his appearance on behalf of the informant,
who has submitted that the petitioners of the present case are the
main accused, who have committed alleged offence of murder
of the father of the informant. Learned counsel further submitted
that the specific allegation has been made against six co-accused
persons, namely, Madan Manjhi, Mithilesh Manjhi, Rohit
Manjhi, Jatan Manjhi, Manoj Manjhi and Barhan Manjhi. Out
of them one Madan Manjhi, who was arrested, had preferred Cr.
Misc. No.61437 of 2024 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
after considering the rival submissions and the allegation made
against him found that with a common intention, the co-accused
Madan Manjhi has committed murder of the father of the
deceased and the regular bail application of the co-accused
Madan Manjhi was rejected, vide order dated 18.01.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No.61437 of 2024.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the
allegation made against the present petitioners in the FIR, they
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89050 of 2024(3) dt.02-07-2025
5/6
along with co-accused Madan Manjhi with a common intention
had committed murder of the father of the informant.
8. In support of the argument of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant, Mr.Ajit Kumar, learned
APP for the State has submitted that in course of the
investigation, evidences have been collected against these
petitioners and the witnesses have also supported the alleged
occurrence, in which the petitioners were involved in
commission of the murder of the father of the informant and in
this regard, while referring to Paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of the
case diary. The postmortem report finds description at page
no.18 of the case diary. Learned APP informs that the Doctor
has opined that the cause of death is due to multiple injury on
the person of the deceased on the vital parts of the body like,
sculp, lungs, ribs and brains and the death has been caused
within 12 hours of grievous injury.
9. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, considering the specific
allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners along with
Mandan Manjhi, whose bail application has been rejected, had
also entered into the house of the deceased and assaulted him
brutally and thereafter they locked the deceased in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89050 of 2024(3) dt.02-07-2025
6/6
Anganwari Centre and they also prevented the deceased from
immediate medical assistance. I find that there is direct
involvement of the petitioners in commission of the murder of
the father of the informant, which is supported by the evidences
collected during the course of the investigation. The postmortem
report reveals multiple injuries caused on the vital parts of the
body of the deceased, which ultimately took the life of the father
of the informant. I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
pre-arrest bail.
10. The present bail application is accordingly
dismissed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U