Patna High Court
Pappu ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Pappu Manjhi, sought bail in a robbery case (Section 392 IPC) where four accused allegedly looted cash at gunpoint. He had been in custody since March 2023 and claimed false implication, noting he was not named in the FIR and was linked only through his own confessional statement without a T.I.P. The State opposed bail, highlighting his 23 prior criminal antecedents. The Patna High Court, after considering the circumstances and length of custody, granted bail subject to a Rs.15,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions including family surety, regular court appearances, non‑tampering with evidence, no further criminal activity, and permission before leaving jurisdiction. The bail was ordered to be released after framing of charge, if not already done.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a serious robbery case under Section 392 IPC despite multiple prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of naming in the FIR warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- criminal antecedents
- false implication
- Patna High Court
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72947 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-626 Year-2021 Thana- DARIYAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Pappu Manjhi S/o Jawahar Manjhi R/o Village - Sikti, P.S - Parsa, District -
Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 626 of 2021 instituted for the offence
under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that four miscreants
on two motorcycle entered into informant’s office and looted
cash of Rs. 2,93,392/- on the point of pistol.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2023. Petitioner
bears twenty-three (23) criminal antecedents, as per disclosure
made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72947 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has
surfaced in this case on the basis of his own confessional
statement. Petitioner was not even put on T.I.P. to ascertain his
complicity in the alleged occurrence.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and period of custody of the petitioner, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing
of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court
in connection with Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 626 of 2021, subject
to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72947 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses of the case by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses,
during the investigation or trial, in that case, prosecution will be
at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(IV) If the petitioner is found indulged in any criminal
activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail,
the prosecution will be at liberty to file an appropriate
application before the court below for cancellation of his bail.
(V) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial
jurisdiction of the court below without its prior permission.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…