Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar Bagbai @ Manoj Manjhi @ Manoj Baghbai @ Manjhi @ Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was denied because the petitioner is the sole assailant and the trial has already commenced.
Summary
Manoj Kumar Bagbai was charged with murder under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and with unlawful possession of a firearm under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He applied for bail for the second time after an earlier application was rejected. The prosecution alleged that he was the sole assailant who shot and killed the deceased, although no witnesses had yet been examined and the murder weapon had not been recovered. The court held that, given his status as the sole assailant and the seriousness of the offences, bail could not be granted at this stage, even though the trial had only just begun. The bail application was dismissed, with directions to the Superintendent of Police to ensure witness attendance and a provision that the petitioner may renew his bail plea if the trial is delayed beyond one year.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused who is the sole assailant in a murder case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether the absence of examined witnesses and the non‑recovery of the murder weapon affect the grant of bail.
- Whether a delay in the trial beyond one year warrants a reconsideration of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- trial delay
- witness attendance
- sole assailant
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31576 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2024 Thana- SHAMBHUGANJ District- Banka
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Bagbai @ Manoj Manjhi @ Manoj Baghbai @ Manjhi @
Manoj Kumar Son of Surendra Manjhi R/O Vill.- Naroun, P.S.- Shambhuganj,
District- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prahlad Kumar Bhagat
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
Mr. Raj Kishor Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 14-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Shambhuganj P.S. Case No. 241 of 2024
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms
Act
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 02.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 28312 of 2025 which
reads as follows:-
Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, who has appeared through
video conferencing and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Shambhuganj P.S. Case No. 241 of 2024 registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31576 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
2/3
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner is the assailant of the deceased. He has fired
and killed the deceased. Charges have been framed in
the month of March but no witness has been examined.
4. The petitioner is in custody since
21.09.2024.
5. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel for thepetitioner has taken this Court to the
post-mortem report and other materials in the case
diary and submits that since there is no charring,
blacking etc., therefore the prosecution becomes
doubtful. He also submits that the murder weapon has
not been recovered and in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal vs.
State of U.P. reported as (2023) 18 SCC 661, the
petitioner deserves bail.
6. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for
bail and has submitted that the petitioner being the
assailant of the deceased does not deserve bail.
7. I have considered the submissions of the
parties.
8. Since the petitioner is the assailant of the
deceased, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the application stands
dismissed.
10. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution,
the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the charge has been framed but no witness has been examined.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the sole
assailant of the deceased and the trial has started, I am not
inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this
application for regular bail stands dismissed.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Banka is directed to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31576 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
3/3
ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial on the dates
fixed so that the trial is not delayed.
7. If the trial is not concluded within one year and is
delayed by the prosecution, the appellant may renew his prayer
for bail.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Banka through FAX or e-mail for
immediate compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.