Patna High Court

Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Manish Kumar petitioned for regular bail in a case registered under sections 140(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was linked to an abduction incident through a call data record (CDR) showing communication between the petitioner and a suspect. The petitioner argued that he had given a statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, did not name himself, and that there was no other material against him, while also noting his prolonged judicial custody since 28‑08‑2025. The State opposed bail, citing two prior criminal cases against the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the court considered the lack of direct incriminating evidence and the petitioner’s right to liberty, and ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the allegations and prior criminal antecedents
Whether the CDR evidence sufficiently links the petitioner to the offence to deny bail
Whether the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS shields the petitioner from bail denial

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 140(2), 183, 3(5), 61(2)

Subjects

regular bail
judicial custody
call data record
Section 183
B.N.S.
criminal antecedent
bail bond

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80270 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-416 Year-2025 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
                 Manish Kumar S/o Dilip Yadav Resident of Village- Dhapri, Post- Chhapra,
                 P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mrs. Anita Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   21-01-2026                     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 sections 140(2), 3(5)

                   and 61(2) of B.N.S.

                                3. The case of the prosecution is that the younger

                   brother of the informant Devashish Ganguly @ Bablu has gone

                   to fetch milk from the house of Sahdev Yadav. When he did not

                   return, the informant called to one of the neighbourers of

                   Sahdev Yadav, namely, Pintu Rajak who informed that his

                   younger brother has proceeded fifteen minutes ago. After that,

                   the informant started searching his brother. One Sonu Yadav

                   disclosed that his younger brother has been abducted by some

                   unknown miscreants on a CNG Toto. One Bipin Ravidas was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80270 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
                                            2/3




          found wondering near the place of occurrence.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned

          counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during course of

          investigation and he has given his statement under Section 183

          of the BNSS wherein he has not named this petitioner rather he

          has not named any of the accused persons as his eyes were

          closed with cloth. During investigation, in para- 42 of the diary,

          the I.O. has collected the CDR of Bipin and from his CDR, it is

          clear that Bipin has talk with one Ajit and Ajit has also talk with

          this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

          that on this basis, the petitioner has been named in this case.

          Save and except this, there is nothing against him. Moreover, he

          is languishing in judicial custody since 28.08.2025.

                       5. Learned APP appearing for the State has

          vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted

          that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two cases.

                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

          considering the 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

          Jhajha P.S. Case No. 416 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80270 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
                                                        3/3




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

                      each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Jamui.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…