Suraj Kr. Mandal @ Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39738 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2024 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui ====================================================== Suraj Kr. Mandal @ Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Kumar Mandal Son of Binod Mandal Resident of Village Madaiya (Madaiya Uttari Tola), P.O. - Goura, P.S. - Laxmipur, District -Jamui, at present resident of Mohalla - Chandajori, P.O. and P.S. -Deoghar, District - Deoghar (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-09-2025 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 159/ 2024 dated 07.05.2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 366 of the IPC.

3. As per the prosecution's story, on 06.05.2024, when the informant woke up, she found her daughter missing and in course of search of her daughter, the informant came to know that this petitioner had kidnapped her daughter.

4. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel are that the victim is a major girl and she solemnized

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39738 of 2025(4) dt.03-09-2025 2/2 marriage with the petitioner in the Marriage Office, Deoghar (Jharkhand) and in this regard, the petitioner has filed Marriage Certificate issued by the Registration Department, Jharkhand (Annexure-p-2). It is further submitted that the victim, who happens to be the wife of the petitioner, has made the allegations under pressure from her parents and after the marriage, they lived together at different places, first at Deoghar and thereafter in the State of Haryana and during that period, the victim did not raise any grievance against the petitioner.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner.

6. Considering the seriousness of the allegations made by the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she disclosed various forms of torture committed by the petitioner including forceful physical relations, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) BKS/- U T