Manni Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9262 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-508 Year-2023 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Manni Rai S/o- Ruman Rai Village- Godhiya Ps-Chiraiya District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ram Dulari Devi W/o- Manoj Rai R/o- Koluharawa Dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Chiraiya (Shikarganj) P.S. Case No. 508 of 2023 registered under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. The mother of the victim has lodged the FIR stating therein that she went for natural call with her daughter. Then, the petitioner along with an unknown person kidnapped the victim and forcibly took her on motorcycle. The informant raised hue and cry, afterwhich, some villagers gathered, to whom the informant narrated the entire occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9262 of 2025(4) dt.16-09-2025 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and both the parties are co-villagers. The petitioner is a person of clean antecedent.

5. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that the victim was a minor girl on the date of occurrence and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C./ 183 of the BNSS, 2023, she has corroborated the allegation as alleged in the FIR. He has submitted further that there is no evidence of land dispute between the parties.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail and the same is rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders in the court below and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T