Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Upendra ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Upendra Manjhi, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a 2021 FIR (Case No. 842) alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co‑accused struck the complainant with a bamboo stick on the head, causing injury and taking money. The petitioner contended that the incident was a minor scuffle, no injury report exists, and the parties have reached a settlement documented before the court. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of a head injury. Considering the absence of an injury report, the petitioner’s clean record, and the settlement, the Court exercised its discretion to grant anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including sureties, cooperation with investigation, and non‑interference with witnesses.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged assault, attempted murder and other IPC offences where no injury report is on record and the parties claim a settlement.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Indian Penal Code
  • assault
  • attempted murder
  • settlement agreement
  • bail conditions
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9941 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-842 Year-2021 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Upendra Manjhi S/o Bagar Manjhi R/o Village - Sapahi, P.S - Raghunathpur
                 O.P, District - East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   26-02-2026                          Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III, learned counsel

                   for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, learned APP

                   representing the State.

                                 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Turkauliya (Raghunathpur O.P.) P.S. Case No.

                   842 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323,

                   379, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on

                   08.11.2021 by the informant, Yadolal Manjhi.

                                 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that while he was talking with Rakesh Manjhi in front of Shiv

                   Manjhi’s house, the accused persons came and allegation is that

                   Sikandar Manjhi and Upendra Manjhi gave bamboo blow on the

                   head causing injuries, further allegation of taking away the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9941 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
                                            2/3




          amount is there. This led to the F.I.R..

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          minor scuffle took place which has been exaggerated, there is no

          injury report to show that whether it was simple or grievous and

          finally the parties have come to terms by submitting an

          agreement document before the concerned court to close the

          case.

                       5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that

          the bamboo blow was on the head which is a vital part.

                       6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also

          the fact that the injury report is not on record, the petitioner has

          no criminal antecedent, they are now trying to solve the problem

          and for this, a joint petition has been preferred before the

          concerned court, in that background, this Court is inclined to

          extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                       7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of

          arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the

          receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-

          (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the

          satisfaction of          learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

          Motihari, East Champaran,               in connection with Turkauliya

          (Raghunathpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 842 of 2021 subject to the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9941 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
                                                        3/3




                      following conditions:-

                                   (i) one of the bailor should be the family

                      member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official

                      document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to

                      show his/her bona fide;

                                   (ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police

                      Station as and when required for cooperating in the

                      investigation;

                                   (iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date

                      before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive

                      dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her

                      bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

                                   (iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or

                      promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,

                      failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for

                      cancellation of the bail bonds;

                                   (v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any

                      criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty

                      to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds.



                                                     (Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-

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.