Patna High Court
Rahul ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and bail is granted to the appellant with conditions, setting aside the lower court’s refusal.
Summary
The appellant, Rahul Manjhi, was arrested in connection with FIR No.568 of 2022 alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 307, 376(D) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. His bail applications had been rejected twice and he had been in custody for over three years without the trial progressing, as only five of ten charge‑sheet witnesses had been examined. The appellant argued that the allegations were fabricated, that co‑accused had been granted bail, and that the prolonged detention violated his right to a speedy trial. The State opposed bail, citing the appellant’s presence at the scene and two prior criminal antecedents. The High Court, considering the length of pre‑trial detention, the delay in trial, and the appellant’s claim of innocence, set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail with strict conditions, thereby allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the CrPC despite prolonged pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the trial delay and incomplete examination of witnesses justify granting bail.
- Whether the appellant’s prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 14(A)(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 341, 376(D), 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- trial delay
- criminal antecedents
- Section 14A
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.860 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-568 Year-2022 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Rahul Manjhi S/O Bhuneshwar Manjhi R/O Vill.- Chapri, P.S.- Fatehpur,
Dist.- Gaya Ji.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Permanand Paswan S/O Late Baleshwar Paswan R/O Vill.- Chapri, P.S.-
Fatehpur, Dist.- Gaya Ji.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-06-2026 Despite valid service of notice upon Respondent
No.2, no one appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.
2. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Ms. Usha Kumari 1, learned Spl.P.P. for
the State.
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 05.01.2026
passed by the learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge-SC/ST ,
Gayaji in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 568 of 2022,
F.I.R. dated 11.09.2022 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504,
506, 307, 376(D) of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(r)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.860 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026
2/4
4. Earlier the bail application of the appellant has been
rejected twice in Cr. Appeal(SJ). No. 4118 of 2022 and Cr.
Appeal No(SJ). 623 of 2025 vide order dated 23.03.2023 and
16.05.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the appellant has not
committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further
submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely,
Vikram Manjhi and Biskarma Manjhi @ Vishwakarma Manjhi
have been granted the privilege of bail by different the co-
ordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023 and
16.05.2023 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.849 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal
(SJ) No.1259 of 2023 and the police, after investigation,
submitted charge sheet against the appellant. The appellant is in
custody since 19.09.2022 and the trial is not in progress.
6. Vide order dated 10.04.2026 a report was called
with regard to stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial
Court dated 17.04.2026 reveals that out of ten charge sheet
witnesses only five witnesses have been examined.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.860 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026
3/4
view of the report of the learned Trial Court the trial is not likely
to be concluded in the near future and the petitioner is in
custody 19.09.2022 i.e. for about three years and nine months.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and
submits that from bare perusal of the statement of the accused
Bhola Singh, it appears that appellant was present at the place of
occurrence and apart from that, the appellant carries two
criminal antecedents other than the present one.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and period of custody of the appellant, let the appellant, above
named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Court of Exclusive Special
Judge-SC/ST , Gayaji in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No.
568 of 2022, with other following conditions:-
i. Appellant 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 his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.860 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026
4/4
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage it is found that the appellant have concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. 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.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.