Manju DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37511 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2026 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Manju Devi W/o Surendra Rai Resident of Village - Paduri, P.S.- Nasariganj,
                 District - Rohtas

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026                       Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the informant

                   and Ms. Renu Kumari, the learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   04.04.2026 in connection with Nasariganj P.S. Case No. 109 of

                   2026, F.I.R. dated 01.04.2026 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 118(1), 103, 351(3),

                   3(5) of BNS, 2023 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. Specific allegation against the co-accused person,

                   namely, Ranjit Mauar is that he got down the father of the

                   informant from the car and shot him on his chest due to which

                   he died.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37511 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/3




          submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. Although the

          petitioner is named in the FIR but there is no specific allegation

          of any assault, overt-act or firing attributed against the petitioner

          rather specific allegation against co-accused person, namely,

          Ranjit Mauar who has fired upon the victim and petitioner has

          been made accused in the present case merely on the basis that

          the petitioner, aged about 70 years, is family member of co-

          accused person namely, Ranjit Mauar and the petitioner is in

          custody since 04.04.2026.

                       5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP

          for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the

          prayer for bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid fact and petitioner has

          clean antecedent, let the petitioner, 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 S.D.J.M., Bikramganj(Rohtas) in connection with

          Nasariganj P.S. Case No. 109 of 2026, with the following

          conditions:-

                       (I) Petitioner 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
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37511 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                           3/3




                         on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                         reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                      (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                         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 petitioner and in case at

                         any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                         criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T