Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Manibhushan Yadav @ Manibhushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
REJECTED

Holding

The court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Manibhushan Yadav, sought bail in a murder case (IPC sections 302 and 201) for which he has been in custody since 10 October 2025. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was falsely implicated, and that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident, indicating a delay. The prosecution, supported by the informant, opposed bail, citing a video recording that purportedly shows the petitioner assaulting the deceased. The court examined the material evidence and the seriousness of the offences. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant release, the court refused the bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to an accused of murder under IPC sections 302 and 201 in view of the video evidence and the delay in filing the FIR.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • murder
  • IPC 302
  • IPC 201
  • video evidence
  • FIR delay
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8834 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2021 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Manibhushan Yadav @ Manibhushan Kumar S/O Harinarayan Ray R/O Vill.-
                 Kataha, P.s - Muffasil, District- East Champaran,Motihari


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


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Ms. Rina Sinha, APP
                 For the Informant        :      Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate
                                          :      Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate
                                          :      Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate
                                          :      Mr. Anirvan Choudhuri, Advocate
                                          :      Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   03-04-2026                      Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner, Ms. Rina Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State Mr.

                   Nilanjan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the Informant.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   10.10.2025 in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 510 of

                   2021, FIR dated 18.09.2021 registered for the offence under

                   Section 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code.

                                3. According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that

                   petitioner along with other co-accused persons committed

                   murder of the informant’s brother.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8834 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

          submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has

          falsely been implicated in this case. It appears from the FIR that

          informant received oral information from someone that

          petitioner along with other have committed the murder of the

          informant’s brother. He next submits that apart from the

          aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during

          investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in

          the present occurrence and it appears from the FIR that date of

          the occurrence was on 16.09.2021 but the FIR was lodge on

          18.09.2021 i.e. after delay of about two days and the petitioner

          is rotting in judicial custody since 10.10.2025.

                          5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as

          learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently

          opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it

          has come during investigation, which is recorded in paragraph-

          23 of the case diary that one video was prepared of the

          occurrence and in the said video the petitioner along with other

          accused persons are seen assaulting the deceased and thereafter

          the body of the deceased was found.

                          6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8834 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 510 of 2021 pending in

                      the Court of C.J.M., Motihari, East Champaran.

                                   7. Prayer is refused.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.