Mangen Rishideo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27517 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-428 Year-2024 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Mangen Rishideo S/O Late Puran Rishideo R/O Village- Pratapnagar, Ward No. 2, P.S- Murliganj and Distt.- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-08-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 428 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 25.09.2024.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is to kidnap the minor daughter of the informant along with other coaccused persons/family members for the purpose of illicit intercourse/marriage with other person. The age of minor

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27517 of 2025(4) dt.27-08-2025 2/3 daughter of informant was 16 years on the date of occurrence which took place on 21.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that daughter of informant due to love affairs with son of informant namely Ranjeet Kumar, left her house out of her own, but as their love affair was not approved by informant being parent of the victim, present false implication was raised making entire family accused and, therefore, petitioner being father was also implicated with the present case. It is submitted that despite the fact as petitioner remains in custody for about one year, not even single prosecution witness was examined and, therefore, there is all likelihood that trial of this case would not conclude within preferred time period of one year as available under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act. While concluding the argument it is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and moreover, investigation of this case has already completed, and as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27517 of 2025(4) dt.27-08-2025 3/3 while opposing the prayer for bail could not disputed aforesaid factual aspect.

7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of fact as prima-facie implication of petitioner appears only being father of main co-accused Ranjeet Kumar, coupled with the fact as petitioner remains in custody since 25.09.2024, where trial of this case is not likely to conclude within preferred time line of one year as per Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, accordingly above named petitioner, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 428 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Madhepura/concerned court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) S.Tripathi/- U T