In Manoj Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan passed a 7-page long order dated October 5, 2026, wherein, it granted leave and concluded: "Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail sought. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 5.02.2026. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties."
This appeal had challenged the order dated February 5, 2026 passed by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the Patna High Court. The appeal arose out of crime registered pursuant to FIR No.121 of 2023 dated July 23, 2023 lodged with PS Birpur District Begusarai, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379, 308, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 147 deals with punishment for rioting, Section 341 deals with wrongful restraint. Section 323 deals with voluntarily causing hurt. Section 379 deals with punishment for theft. Section 308 deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide. Section 504 deals with intentional insult to provoke breach of peace. Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. While sections like 323, 341, and 504 are relatively minor and bailable, the inclusion of Section 308 makes it a major case. Anticipating arrest in connection with this crime, the appellants had preferred a criminal miscellaneous application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
By order dated August 6, 2026, the Supreme Court had issued notice in the instant matter, while granting interim protection from arrest to the appellant. The appellant's counsel submitted before the Supreme Court that in the instant case the investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has also been filed as against the appellant herein. The appellant has cooperated with the investigation. In the circumstances, the impugned order may be made absolute as two other co-accused have also been granted the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned
Earlier, in Manoj Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court had passed a 1-page long order dated February 5, 2026, wherein, he observed and concluded:""2. This is second anticipatory bail petition. Earlier, the petition, filed for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner, stood rejected, vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61306 of 2024. 3 . This application does not reveal any change of circumstances or new ground. 4. In view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 176, the second anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Prior to this, in Manoj Sah & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Singh had passed a 3-page long order dated September 25, 2024, wherein, he drew on the submission of the APP of the State to that ".....there is specific accusation of assault against these petitioners and injuries allegedly caused by Petitioner No. 1 have been opined to be grievous in nature", he concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and nature of injury sustained by informant the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 1 is rejected. 7. Considering the fact that there is general and omnibus allegation of assault against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 , in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks from today, let the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 , as named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Begusarai in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2023 , subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of." The other two petitioners were: Pradeep Sah and Sonu Sah.
The petitioners had approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 147, 341 , 323 , 308 , 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date and time of occurrence, on the order of co-accused Sujit Kumar, these petitioners, along with other co-accused persons started assaulting the informant and his son Gautam Kumar with lathi-rod and khanti with the intention to kill them. It is next alleged that co-accused, Sujit, assaulted the informant's son with khanti on his head, causing injury to him. Petitioner No. 1 Manoj Sah, assaulted informant with lathi on his head, but the same hit on his hand, and he got a severe injury and fell on the ground. Thereafter, these petitioners assaulted informant with lathi, rod, and khanti. When the son of informant Gaurav Kumar and his wife came to save them, then these petitioners brutally assaulted them with lathi, rod, and khanti. It is further alleged that co-accused Jaymala Devi, snatched mangalsutra from the neck of the informant's wife . Petitioner no. 3 took out Rs. two thousand from the pocket of the informant. 4. It is submitted on behalf of these petitioners that both parties are agnates and dispute arose between them over partition of land for which a simple occurrence of maarpeet took place between them. Case and counter case . Allegation of assault is general and omnibus against these petitioners.
Supreme Court has reversed the order by Justice Singh.
No comments:
Post a Comment