Patna High Court

Mahendra ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that the evidential material was insufficient to justify continued detention.

Summary

Mahendra Manjhi was arrested in connection with a dacoity case (IPC Sec. 395) and an additional charge of concealing stolen property (IPC Sec. 412). The FIR named unknown persons, but during investigation a co‑accused, Guddu Manjhi, gave a confessional statement implicating the petitioner. No material evidence such as recovery of stolen goods, identification parade, or other corroboration was presented against Mahendra Manjhi, who has a clean antecedent and has been in judicial custody since 30‑06‑2025. The petitioner applied for regular bail, arguing the lack of substantive proof beyond the co‑accused’s confession. The Additional Prosecutor opposed bail, but the Court, considering the weak evidential basis, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the only incriminating material is a confessional statement of a co‑accused and no other evidence has been produced.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 395, 412

Subjects

bail
dacoity
confessional statement
co‑accused
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code
presumption of innocence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75346 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2007 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Mahendra Manjhi S/O Ranjeet Manjhi @ Gogal Manjhi @ Goga Manjhi R/O
                 Jani Bhigha, P.S- Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gaya.              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   13-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the

                   Indian Penal Code and and further Section 412 of the Indian Penal

                   Code was added.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on the

                   night of 17-18.02.2007 at around 12 O’ clock some unknown

                   persons about 10-12 in numbers attacked the house of the

                   informant and said that they were members of MCC party and

                   forcefully entered into his house and looted property from his

                   house and also from the house of 10-12 other villagers.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. Learned counsel

                   for the petitioner has submitted that neither any recovery has been

                   made from the petitioner nor the petitioner has been put on Test
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75346 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
                                                        2/2




                      Identification Parade. During course of investigation, one spy has

                      disclosed the name of co-accused Guddu Manjhi. Guddu Manjhi

                      has given his confessional statement and in his confessional

                      statement he has named this petitioner. Learned counsel for the

                      petitioner has further submitted that save and except the

                      confessional statement of co-accused, there is nothing against this

                      petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that no recovery

                      has been made from the house of this petitioner. Learned counsel

                      for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the petitioner is having

                      clean antecedent and is in judicial custody since 30.06.2025.

                                   5. Learned Additional Prosecutor for the State has

                      vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

                      the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The

                      above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in

                      connection with Sessions Trial No. 682 of 2025 arising out of

                      Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 21 of 2007 on furnishing bail bond of

                      Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                      each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Session Judge-XIII,

                      Gaya Ji.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…