Patna High Court
Manjan Kumar @ Manjan @ Ripu RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Manjan Kumar was arrested for allegedly snatching a mobile phone and charged under several sections of the BNS and the Arms Act. He had been in judicial custody since 8 September 2025 and sought regular bail. The prosecution opposed bail, citing a prior criminal case. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the seized phone differed from the one alleged to be stolen and pointed to a similar bail order granted to a co‑accused. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, directing release upon satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious charges under the BNS and Arms Act
- Whether the existence of a prior criminal case bars bail
- Whether the difference in mobile phone brands and the precedent of bail to a co‑accused affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- criminal antecedent
- mobile snatching
- Arms Act
- BNS
- Patna High Court
- bail bond
- sureties
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87660 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-629 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Manjan Kumar @ Manjan @ Ripu Raj Son of Manoj Ray @ Kumar @
Manoj Kumar Resident of Village - Nayatola Dighi Purbi, P.S.- Sadar Hajipur,
District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 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 318(4),
308(5), 309(4), 317(2) & 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections
25(1-b)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that there is
allegation against the petitioner that he has snatched the mobile
of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the FIR it is clear that the mobile phones which
have been snatched are of Realme and VIVO company whereas
the mobile which has been recovered from the petitioner is of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87660 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/2
Samsung company. It has further been submitted that a similarly
situated co-accused Gaurav Kumar has been granted bail by this
Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 83865 of 2025. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is languishing in
judicial custody since 08.09.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the bail and has submitted that the
petitioner is having criminal antecedent of one case.
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
Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 629 of 2025 on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…