Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37216/2015dismissed

Raktu Manjhi @ Jay Shanker Manjhi @ Jai Shanker Pd. v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-16Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37216 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2015 Thana -RIVILGANJ District- SARAN ====================================================== Raktu Manjhi @ Jay Shanker Manjhi @ Jai Shanker Pd. Son of Late Bishwanath Manjhi, resident of Village- Mohammadpur, P.S. Rivilganj, District- Saran, .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 16-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 21.06.2015 in connection with RivilganjP.S. Case No. 92 of 2015 for the offences alleged under Sections 363, 366(A),120B and 34 of the of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the FIR has been instituted after considerable delay on 15.06.2015 for the alleged occurrence of 08.06.2015. It is further submitted that earlier the petitioner along with the so-called victim had appeared before the Mahila P.S. and the petitioner was released on personal bond. Subsequently however, the victim girl deposed before the learned Court below and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has specifically named the petitioner as having committed the offences. It is further submitted that the other co-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37216 of 2015 (3) dt.16-10-2015 accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 37465 of 2015. It is submitted that the nature of accusation with regard to the petitioner had established physical relationship with the alleged victim was not corroborated by the medical evidence.

4. Considering that the petitioner is FIR named accused and having regard to the deposition of the victim girl wherein she has specifically named the petitioner as having committed the offences in question, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. The bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran U