Patna High Court
Amar Manjhi @ Amar Kumar Manjhi @ Amar Kumar ManjhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Amar Manjhi, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged theft of goods worth Rs. 7 lakh from his own house. He claimed to have a clean antecedent, asserted that he was working in Delhi at the time of the incident, and argued that the FIR was based solely on a confessional statement of an accused in police custody, which he said lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, pointing out that the petition did not specify the petitioner’s exact residence or nature of employment and emphasized that the investigation was ongoing. The Court examined the submissions and found the petitioner's claims insufficient to merit the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.
- Whether a confessional statement of an accused in police custody can be relied upon to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent and employment in Delhi affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 380, 457
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Theft
- House trespass
- Criminal Procedure
- Bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79188 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2023 Thana- TARABARI District- Araria
======================================================
Amar Manjhi @ Amar Kumar Manjhi @ Amar Kumar Manjh S/O
Visheshwar Manjhi R/o Village- Baturwari (Pategana) P.S.- Tararbari,
District-Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Chand Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Tarabari P. S. Case No.137 of 2023 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case but inadvertently at
Para-3, it has been recorded that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that in his absence, a theft
took place in his house and accused committed theft of articles
worth Rs.7 Lacs.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79188 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/2
the FIR was against against known and the name of the
petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of
apprehended accused in police custody, which does not have
any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that petitioner works
in Delhi and was not even present at the place of occurrence on
the date of occurrence.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that though in the anticipatory bail
application, it is pleaded that petitioner works in Delhi, but then,
it is a bald statement, no address where the petitioner resides is
given, nor the kind of work, the petitioner is discharging at
Delhi is pleaded. It is next submitted that it is a case of looting
the house in absence of the informant and the investigation of
the case is continuing.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…