Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26724/2017dismissed

Pradeshi Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-26Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26724 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -209 Year- 2014 Thana -JAHANABAD District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Pradeshi Manjhi, son of Suresh Manjhi, resident of Village- Babhana, P.S.- Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Jehanabad P.S.Case No. 209 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with others has kidnapped the victim girl and thereafter forcibly married her and committed rape upon her and the girl appears to be minor and she has also supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 366A IPC and so far commission of rape is concerned, the story of rape is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26724 of 2017 (4) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 falsified by Annexure-2, which is an affidavit of the girl sworn before Notary Public. Further submission is that doctor has found no sign of rape on the person of victim.

Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and from perusal of FIR and 164 Cr.P.C. statement it appears that there is allegation of committing rape and forcibly marry her and Annexure-2 has no evidentiary value at present, prayer for bail is rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U