Shankar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53612 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== Shankar Manjhi aged about 20 years / male, son of Ram Manjhi @ Rama Manjhi, resident of village- Kharath, Tola Bhawani Bigha, Police StationMufassil, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad No. 1, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 24 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 506, 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner untied the pant of the daughters of the informant aged about five years and eight years with bad intention and also injured the younger daughter of the informant on her face and neck by means of nail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to dispute

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53612 of 2019(3) dt.25-11-2019 2/2 of passage with the father of the victim girls. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of the First Information Report no offence, much less, offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is made out against the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail and submits that the victim girls in their statement have reiterated the version of the First Information Report and have named the petitioner, who untied the pant of the younger daughter of the informant with bad intention.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at present. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year in custody.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T