Bittu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48031 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2024 Thana- SIDHWALIYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Bittu Manjhi Son of Ramchandra Manjhi Resident of Village - Dangsi, P.S.- Sidhwalia, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 17.04.2025 and the informant alleges that on account of previous enmity, the accused persons including the petitioner kidnapped her minor daughter, aged about 15 years, for some immoral purpose.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that victim has come back and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48031 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026 2/3 her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has alleged allegation of rape against Anand and petitioner but then it is submitted that the injury report does not corroborate the allegation of rape as hymen was found intact and the age of the victim was assessed in between 18-19 years. It is also submitted that Arun Pandey had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.11569 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 16.04.2025. It is also submitted that the fact that medical report does not corroborate the allegation of rape is recorded in the order dated 16.04.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.11569 of 2025.
5. The learned APP opposes the bail application and submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not whispered anything against Arun Pandey but then the victim alleges rape against Anand and this petitioner on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterates and submits that allegation of rape is not corroborated by the injury report.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48031 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026 3/3 hereby rejected in connection with Sidhwalia P.S. Case No.163 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj.
7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T