Patna High Court
Santosh ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court directed the District Court to record the minor victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS and to release the petitioner on bail if the victim does not support the prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Manjhi, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 105, 74, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, alleging that he had no mens rea for the death of an informant’s grandfather and that the FIR only shows a generic allegation of a push. The State opposed, contending that the FIR also contains a separate allegation of misconduct with a minor (the informant’s cousin sister) attracting Section 8 of the POCSO Act, supported by the victim’s statement under Section 180 of the BNSS. The Court observed that the allegations could be bifurcated: one relating to the alleged POCSO offence and the other to the alleged assault causing death, for which no specific overt act by the petitioner was established. The Court noted that the District Court had not recorded the minor’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and directed it to do so, stating that if the victim does not support the prosecution, the petitioner should be released on bail with appropriate conditions. The bail application was therefore disposed of pending the victim’s statement.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail for the alleged culpable homicide under Section 105 BNS in view of alleged lack of mens rea.
- Whether the allegation of misconduct with a minor under Section 8 POCSO Act justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the District Court erred in not recording the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- culpable homicide
- mens rea
- POCSO
- minor victim
- victim statement
- BNS
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10787 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-383 Year-2025 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
Santosh Manjhi Son of Bhagi Manjhi Village -Dumrawa, P.S-. Pakribarawan,
District -Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 Heard Sudhir Kumar Singh along with Mr. Amrish
Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and Mr. Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Pakaribaraw P.S. Case No. 383 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 105,74,351(2),352,3(5), of
the BNS.
3. According to the allegations made in the FIR, the
accused persons named therein, including the petitioner,
misbehaved with the informant’s cousin sister and subsequently
when grandfather of the informant went to the house of the
accused persons, they assaulted the informant’s grandfather, by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10787 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
means of slap and also knocked down on the ground, as a result
of which, he died.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals
absence of mens rea on the part of the petitioner to cause the
death of the informant’s grandfather. It is contended that the
essential ingredients of culpable homicide are not satisfied and,
therefore, no offence under Section 105 of the BNS is made out.
It is further submitted that, at best, the allegation against the
petitioner is that he pushed the deceased, an elderly person, who
fell and later died. Referring to the post-mortem report, it is
argued that the cause of death has been attributed to impact with
a hard surface. It is also submitted that the petitioner has clean
antecedent and that the allegations are general and omnibus in
nature, as two persons have been made accused for the alleged
act and only one injury on the scull has been found on the body
of the deceased.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State has opposed
the prayer for pre-arrest bail and submitted that the FIR
discloses two distinct sets of allegations. The first pertains to
misconduct by the petitioner and co-accused with the minor
sister of the informant, including catching hold of her hand,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10787 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
thereby prima facie attracting the provisions of Section 8 of the
POCSO Act. The second relates to the assault on the informant’s
grandfather, which ultimately resulted in his death. It is
contended that sufficient materials have emerged during the
course of investigation to support the allegations and, therefore,
the petitioner don’t deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and upon
perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the
allegations in the FIR can be bifurcated into two parts. The first
part relates to the alleged misconduct with the minor victim,
aged about 15 years, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have
caught hold of her hand, prima facie attracting an offence under
the POCSO Act. This allegation is further supported by the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the
BNSS.
7. The second part pertains to the alleged assault on
the informant’s grandfather, which led to his death. In this
regard, the allegations against the petitioner appear to be general
and omnibus. The materials on record indicate that only one
injury was found on the deceased, and the medical opinion
attributes the cause of death to impact with a hard and blunt
surface. Prima facie, therefore, no specific overt act is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10787 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
attributable to the petitioner in causing the fatal injury.
8. However, it is noteworthy that the learned District
Court did not adequately consider the allegation relating to the
overt act allegedly committed by the petitioner against the
minor victim, which finds support from her statement recorded
under Section 180 of the BNSS.
9. Accordingly, the learned District Court is directed
to record the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the
BNSS. In the event that the victim does not support the
prosecution case, the petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest
bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District Court
may deem fit and proper.
10. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…