Patna High Court
Baijnath ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that regular bail could not be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
Summary
Baijnath Manjhi was charged with murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting the deceased. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence and arguing that the examined witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The State opposed bail, asserting that the allegations were serious and that prima facie material linked the petitioner to the crime. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in X vs State of Rajasthan & Anr (2024), declined to grant regular bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of murder (IPC 302) with alleged involvement under the facts presented.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- regular bail
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76658 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-454 Year-2020 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Baijnath Manjhi S/O Late Chalitar Manjhi R/vill- Mohabbatpur, P.S.-
Sherghati, Distt- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Sherghati P.S. Case No. 454 of 2020 registered for the offence
under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
3. The petitioner is alleged to be the assailant of the
deceased and is said to have shot him, resulting in his death. The
trial has commenced, and some witnesses have already been
examined.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence.
Petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2024. He further submits
that the witnesses who have been examined, have not supported
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76658 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
2/2
the prosecution case and therefore, the petitioner may be granted
bail.
5. The learned counsel for the State vehemently
opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations
against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. It is
contended that prima facie there is sufficient material against
the petitioner indicating his involvement in the commission of
the offence.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the
assailant of the deceased and in light of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs State of Rajasthan
& Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, this Court is not inclined to
grant regular bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…