Manjeet Kumar Ram @ Manjit Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30193 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2025 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Manjeet Kumar Ram @ Manjit Kumar Ram S/O Amerika Ram Resident of Village- Gonouli, P.S- Lauriya, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shubham Sourav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Raushan Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-05-2025 Heard Mr. Shubham Sourav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No.94 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 89, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNSS, 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner established a physical relationship with the informant, promising to marry her. It is also alleged that, as a result of this relationship, the informant became pregnant. The petitioner then administered some medicine, causing her to have an abortion.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30193 of 2025(2) dt.19-05-2025 2/3
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there was an affair between the informant and the petitioner outside the marriage. During course of investigation, the victim has given her statement under Section 183 of the BNS, wherein she has stated that they had physical relationship many times and she was in relationship with the petitioner three years ago and after that, she has stated that when she asked the petitioner to marry, he told that after the marriage of elder brother, he will marry, which goes to show that the marriage was forced by the victim herself. There is nothing like promise of marriage by the petitioner.
From the above discussions, it is clear that the marriage was forced by the victim herself or there was intercourse prior to the promise. Counsel further submits that a compromise petition has been filed, which goes to show that if the petitioner gets bail, he will marry the victim. A statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 23.02.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30193 of 2025(2) dt.19-05-2025 3/3
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a case of affair outside marriage, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM 1st, West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No. 94 of 2025. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T