Ranjan Manjhi @ Ranjan Raj Banshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2058 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2018 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada ====================================================== Ranjan Manjhi @ Ranjan Raj Banshi, son of Raja Ram Manjhi, resident of Village- Bengucha, P.S.- Karande, District - Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 15-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 212 of 2018 registered under Section 366-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner, who happens to be son-in-law of the informant, is said to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant with an intent to perform marriage with her. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has committed no offence and has no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. The victim happens to be major and in her statement under Section

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2058 of 2019(4) dt.15-02-2019 2/2 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she had suo motu eloped with the petitioner and performed Court marriage with her. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 18.08.2018. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the transfer certificate issued by the Gopalpur Primary School indicates that the date of birth of the victim is 18.05.2004 and as per the said date of birth the victim is aged about 14 years and she happens to be minor. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has candidly stated that they have established sexual cohabitation since 3-4 months and she is pregnant. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) Trivedi/- U T