Patna High Court
Nanhu Manjhi @ Raj Kumar ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to conditions, as the FIR does not specifically allege any overt act by him and he has a clean antecedent.
Summary
Nanhu Manjhi (also known as Raj Kumar Manjhi) was arrested on 22 November 2025 in connection with FIR No. 161 of 2025 alleging assault on the informant’s family that led to the death of her father‑in‑law. The petitioner sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and arguing that the FIR contains only a generic allegation against all accused without specific reference to any overt act by him. The State and the informant opposed bail, contending that the petitioner participated in the crime and is named in the FIR. The court noted the absence of a specific charge against the petitioner, the clean record, and the fact that co‑accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR.
- Whether the lack of a specific allegation against the petitioner warrants bail.
- Whether the clean antecedent and bail granted to co‑accused influence the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115, 126, 137, 140, 190, 191, 303, 351, 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- clean antecedent
- FIR
- co‑accused
- Indian Penal Code
- assault
- death of family member
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7069 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya
======================================================
Nanhu Manjhi @ Raj Kumar Manjhi S/o Mantu Manjhi @ Maul Manjhi @
Ram Bilash Manjhi @ Ram Vilash Manjhi Resident of Bardiha Tola Dukhi
Bigha, P.S.- Tankuppa, District- Gaya Jee, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Deepali Singh, Advocate
: Mr.Anmol Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bharat Lal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 18-03-2026 Heard Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh,learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the informant and Mr.Bharat Lal, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
22.11.2025 in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161
of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.07.2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 191(2), 190,126(2),115(2), 109,
140(1),137(2),303(2),352,351(2) of BNS, 2023.
3. As per FIR, allegation against the petitioner is
that he alongwith other co-accused persons assaulted the
family members of informant due to which her father-in-law
has died.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7069 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The
allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the
FIR. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from a
bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific
allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the
petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation
against all the accused persons including the petitioner and
co-accused persons, namely, Sugiya Devi @ Sunaina Devi
and Samdeo Manjhi @ Shyamdeo Manjhi, against whom the
similar allegation, have been granted bail by this Court vide
orders dated 15.01.2026 and 19.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc.
Nos.86948 of 2025 and 87400 of 2025 respectively and the
police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 22.11.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has
participated in the present crime in question and petitioner is
named in the FIR.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7069 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026
3/4
clean antecedent, there is no specific allegation of any assault
or overt-act attributed against the petitioner in the FIR and co-
accused persons, against whom the similar allegation, have
been granted bail by this Court, 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 Additional District
and Sessions Judge-16, Gaya Jee in connection with
Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7069 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026
4/4
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
Checking your session…