Patna High Court
Shukar Manjhee @ Arun Manjhee @ Shukar Manjhi @ Arun ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and violative of Article 21, and thus granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Shukar Manjhee, was charged under IPC sections 188, 302/34 and several provisions of the Arms Act for a case registered in 2023. He had been in custody since September 2023 and earlier bail was denied by the same court. On a second bail application, counsel argued that only official witnesses remained to be examined after a seven‑month delay, making trial completion unlikely and violating the petitioner’s Article 21 right to liberty. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The court held that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and contrary to Article 21, and therefore granted bail subject to monetary and conduct conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving murder and arms offences given the seriousness of the charges
- Whether the delay in trial and lack of witness examination justify bail on the ground of violation of Article 21
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention serves any purpose or amounts to punitive incarceration
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 25(9), 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 188, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- murder
- trial delay
- fundamental rights
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78648 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2023 Thana- MANPUR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Shukar Manjhee @ Arun Manjhee @ Shukar Manjhi @ Arun Manjhi S/O
Bilaiti Manjhee @ Bilayati Manjhi R/O Vill.- Makhdumpur Tadapur, P.S.-
Giriyak Manpur, Dist.- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anwar Karim, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.Tr.
No. 136 of 2024, arising out of Manpur P.S. Case No. 172 of
2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 188, 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35, 27 & 25(9) of
the Arms Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 22.11.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 61250 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the
offence, with a direction to the learned Trial court to expedite
the trial as expeditiously as early as possible without any undue
delay and unnecessary adjournments.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78648 of 2025(5) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
the present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is
framed and till date, only official witnesses i.e. I.O and Doctor
are remained to be examined. It is further submitted that after a
lapse of seven months neither Doctor nor I.O has been
examined in this case. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2023.
Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of
the trial being concluded in the near future. Learned counsel
goes on to submit that the continued incarceration of the
petitioner without conclusion of trial amounts to a gross
violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, which is reiterated by Hon’ble
Apex Court in plethora of judgments.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, period of custody of the petitioner
and taking into account the fact that continued detention of the
petitioner would serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial
incarceration, which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78648 of 2025(5) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with
S.Tr. No. 136 of 2024, arising out of Manpur P.S. Case No. 172
of 2023, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be the petitioner’s own or
close member.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed during the trial and shall not remain absent on two
consecutive dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence or influence/intimidate any witness during
the course of trial.
In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions,
the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…