Patna High Court
Rakesh Manjhi @ Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the allegations were serious and the confessional statement of a co‑accused warranted further investigation.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Manjhi, applied for anticipatory bail in a case (Garkha PS Case No. 674 of 2024) involving alleged theft of a mobile phone and a motorcycle under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR alleged that two unknown persons assaulted the informant, stole his belongings, and fled on the informant’s motorcycle. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated based on a co‑accused’s confessional statement and that the vehicle recovered from his house belonged to his brother and was unrelated to the crime. The State argued that the petitioner is linked to a local gang and may be involved in serious offences such as dacoity, warranting further investigation. The court considered the seriousness of the allegation, the relevance of the co‑accused’s confession, and the potential for ongoing investigation. Consequently, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail, dismissing the petitioner's prayer.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita given the nature of the allegations.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused can justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether alleged association with a criminal gang and seriousness of the offence preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 309(4)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- confessional statement
- serious offence
- dacoity
- motor vehicle theft
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65856 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-674 Year-2024 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
Rakesh Manjhi @ Rakesh Kumar S/O Late Bajrangi Manjhi R/O Village-
Mithepur, P.S.- Garkha, Dist.- 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. Abhay Kumar Roy, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Garkha Police Station Case No. 674 of 2024,
disclosing offences under Section 309(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report, is that on on 12.10.2024 at about 9:30 PM, the
informant and his sister-in-law, while returning from a fair, were
intercepted by two unknown persons who assaulted the
informant, took their mobile phones, and later decamped with
the informant’s motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-04 AB-
5824 and mobile phone.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65856 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused, namely,
Mainish Kumar. As per the F.I.R., the allegation of theft of a
mobile phone and a motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-04
AB-5824 is against two unknown persons. However, from the
house of the petitioner, a different motorcycle bearing
Registration No. BR-31-AZO-569 was recovered. Impugned
order also mentioned the recovery of a motorcycle bearing
Registration No. BR-31 A0-569, which does not correspond to
the vehicle involved in the occurrence. The recovered
motorcycle from the house of the petitioner, bearing
Registration No. BR-31 AZO-569 belongs to the petitioner’s
brother and has no connection whatsoever with the present case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that during course of investigation, it has come to light
that the petitioner is associated with a gang operating in the area
and is involved in the commission of serious offences of
dacoity.
6. Regards being had to the submissions made by the
parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and
the gravity of the offence and the fact that confessional
statement of the co-accused, may form the basis of further
investigation against the present petitioner by the Police, I am
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65856 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. In the result, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…