Rahul Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34911 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2021 Thana- DARIYAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Manjhi Son of Nagendra Manjhi Resident of Village - Basdila, P.S.- Jalalpur, Dist.- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shrinath Manjhi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-09-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 99 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354(C), 376, 504 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, this petitioner forcibly established physical relation with the victim girl and recorded video of the incident and blackmailing the informant and also demanded cash of Rs. 5 lakh. It is further alleged that if the money is not paid to the petitioner he would make the video viral and he made the video viral on the mobile of Gotani of Informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34911 of 2021(3) dt.21-09-2021 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics. No such occurrence as alleged in the FIR has ever taken place. Falsity of the FIR is apparent from the fact that incident is said to have taken place in the in-laws house of informant. Petitioner has got no concern with the informant or her family members and he is in custody since 03.03.2021 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner established physical relation at the Sasural of informant, recorded the video of the incident and also made it viral on the mobile of informant's Gotani. Moreover, prosecution case is also supported by the informant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In view of the statement of informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T