Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42681/2025bail rejected

Guddu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-27Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42681 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1090 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Guddu Manjhi, aged about 35 years, Gender-Male, S/o Jagdish Manjhi, R/O Vill.- Paharpur, P.S.- Fatehpur, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 377 of 2025, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 1090 of 2024 dated 15.12.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 64 of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.12.2024, the informant went towards Crusher Machine for her call of nature, in the meantime, the petitioner came and took her in a room near the Crusher Machine and committed rape on her. It is further alleged that the petitioner was in drunken condition. When the informant went to her house, she narrated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42681 of 2025(3) dt.27-08-2025 2/3 her family members about the incident then they informed police by dialing 112.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there was family dispute between the father-in-law of the informant and the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the petitioner used to reside with the father-in-law of the informant and only with a view to gain over in the family dispute, he has been booked in the present case. The place of occurrence was day time and none has seen the occurrence, though the alleged occurrence took place near the Crusher Machine where the labourers were doing their work at the relevant point of time. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and charge has been framed in the present case. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2024 in this case.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Learned A.P.P. for the State has further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42681 of 2025(3) dt.27-08-2025 3/3 under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, has supported the prosecution case.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the accusation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 377 of 2025, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 1090 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-XV, Gaya.

7. The application stands rejected.

8. The learned court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest. (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U.K./- U T