Jeev Manjhi @ Rakesh Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40065 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-678 Year-2022 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Jeev Manjhi @ Rakesh Manjhi Son of Late Lal Bihari Manjhi Resident of Village - Balganga, Police Station - Raghunathpur, District - East Champaran at Motihari.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

XXXX Wife of XXXX Resident of Village - Balganga, Police Station - Raghunathpur, District - East Champaran at Motihari. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Karan Deep Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Turkauliya (Raghunathpur) P.S. Case No. 678 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 363, 366(A) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act. 3.

Prosecution case, in short, is that petitioner along with other co-accused enticed away the informant's daughter with wrongful intent.

4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40065 of 2025(4) dt.09-09-2025 2/3 that the petitioner is in custody since 24-03-2025. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is delay of two days in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she has gone with the petitioner at her own volition and she has performed marriage with the petitioner. From perusal of the medical report, it would manifest that no spermatozoa was found. Charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. 6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody of the petitioner, there being no allegation of over act against the petitioner in the statement of the victim u/S 164 of the Cr.P.C. and charge sheet being submitted, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 8.

Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40065 of 2025(4) dt.09-09-2025 3/3 of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Turkauliya (Raghunathpur) P.S. Case No. 678 of 2022, subject to the following conditions:

(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner.

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T