Rahul Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3649 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2020 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR MANJHI BAIDNATH MANJHI @ VAIJNATH MANJHI Resident of Village - Jigna Gopal, P.S.- Mirganj, Distt.- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Pravesh Nath Tiwari, Advocat.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. S. Etheshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-04-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual Court proceedings. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 362 & 366A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-XVI, Gopalganj.

The minor daughter of the informant is said to have been kidnapped by the petitioner for the purpose of marriage or in order to seduce in illegal act, while all the family members were sleeping.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is co-villager

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3649 of 2021(3) dt.13-04-2021 2/2 of the victim girl and there is sweet relation between both the families and the girl has gone with the petitioner out of her sweet will. She was recovered with the petitioner at a distance of one kilometer from the house of the informant of this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 17.08.2020.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioner has abducted the minor girl of the informant and the victim has supported the case of the prosecution in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., hence he does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T