Patna High Court
Dinesh ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners Shanti Devi and Ritan Manjhi subject to a bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioners Dinesh Manjhi, Shanti Devi and Ritan Manjhi sought anticipatory bail in a complaint alleging murder and related offences under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(50) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. The prosecution’s case is based on an informant, Bedamiya Devi, who claimed to have received a mobile‑phone tip that the petitioners were involved in the killing of Baby Devi and the disposal of her body. The petitioners argued that they are merely co‑villagers with no familial link to the deceased, that the informant is not an eye‑witness and has not disclosed how she obtained the information, and that no motive has been established. The State opposed the anticipatory bail, but the court noted the lack of direct evidence, the clean antecedents of the petitioners, and the fact that similarly situated co‑accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the court dismissed the first petitioner's bail request as withdrawn and granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 2 and 3 subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the informant’s testimony provides sufficient material to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to flee or tamper with evidence, justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS 2023 are appropriate for granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(50), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- informant reliability
- bail conditions
- Section 482
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76522 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2024 Thana- KATHAIYA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1 . Dinesh Manjhi S/O Ramsewak Majhi Resident of village- Gawaspur, P.S.-
Kathaiya, Dist.- Muzaffarpur
2. Shanti Devi W/O Dineshwar Manjhi Resident of village- Gawaspur, P.S.-
Kathaiya, Dist.- Muzaffarpur
3. Ritan Manjhi S/O Narayan Manjhi Resident of village- Gawaspur, P.S.-
Kathaiya, Dist.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sagar Kumar , Advocate
Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners
seek permission to withdraw the pre-arrest bail petition of
petitioner No. 1 .
2. Permission is accorded.
3 . This bail petition with respect to petitioner No. 1 is
dismissed as withdrawn .
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3
and learned A.P.P. for the State .
5 . The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a
complaint case punishable for the offence under Sections 103
(1) , 238 and 3 (50 of BNS.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76522 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
6. As per prosecution case , informant namely , Bedamiya
devi alleged that on 25.10.2024 , she got an information
through mobile phone that her daughter Baby devi has been
killed by Lal Baadur Manjhi, Rameshwar Manjhi, Sumitra devi
and Randhir Manjhi and they disappared the dead body of her
daughter. Upon the aforesaid information , informant reached at
the matrimonial house of her daughter but the above persons
were found absconding and children of her daughter were also
traceless. It is further alleged that marriage of her daughter was
solemnized, 12 years ago and husband of the deceased used to
live outside for livelihood.
7. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that
petitioners are co-villager but not family members of the
husband of the deceased. They have got no concern with the
alleged occurrence . Informant is not an eye-witness of the
occurrence and had not disclosed the source of information as to
how she came to know about the involvement of these
petititioners in the alleged incident. He further submits that no
motive has been assigned as to why these petitioners committed
the alleged offence . He further submits that the conduct of the
informant appears to be suspicious because the informant is a
resident of Rasulpur Vaishali than how she came to know about
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76522 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
the presence of dead body on 22.11.2024 and when she
accompanied the police why she did not sign upon the report.
During course of investigation , none of the witnesses claimed
to have seen the alleged offence . Petitioners claim clean
antecedent. Similarly situated co-accused persons have already
been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
25.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 54366 of 2025 .
8 . Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail of petitioner.
9. However, considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, let the above named petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in
the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks
from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate Muzaffarpur (West ) in connection with
Kathaiya Case No. 213 of 2024 , subject to condition as laid
down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS 2023 .
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…