IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65702 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- TURKI KHARARU District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Manish Kumar Verma S/O Satya Prakash Narayan Verma R/o village- korigama, PS- Sakra, district- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Pradhan Murlimanohar Prasad, Adv/ Mr.Raju Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Turki Khararu P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections-103(1), 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023. 3. According to FIR, marriage of the daughter of informant was solemnized with the petitioner. When his daughter was in her maika, the petitioner came to her maika for Bidagiri of informant’s daughter, where some quarrel took place regarding the Bidagiri of daughter of the informant which was pacified. In the late night, the petitioner and his friends brutally assaulted the informant’s son and after suffering the assault, he Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65702 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026 2/2 died. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. According to the FIR, the matter was pacified, so, there is no question of assault to the deceased by the petitioner and his friends. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant is an eye witness to the occurrence. He saw his son while he was being assaulted by the petitioner and his friends. The postmortem report corroborates the allegation, as on the head of the deceased, the injury was found. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail and accordingly, the same is rejected. A.K.V.//- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T