Mantu Prasad @ Mantu Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68884 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2020 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan ====================================================== Mantu Prasad @ Mantu Kumar Manjhi Son Of Bhagelu Prasad Resident Of Village - Mairwa Dham, Darauli Road, P.S.- Mairwa, Distt.- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 28-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case as per F.I.R is that the daughter and the niece of the informant went missing from near the canal and on the disclosure of one Gyanchand Singh it was suspected that the petitioner along with other accused persons have abducted and taken away the daughter and niece of the informant namely Priti Kumari and Rinku Kumari respectively, for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68884 of 2021(5) dt.28-09-2022 2/3 committing some sort of illegal activities.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that daughter of the informant namely Priti Kumari in her 164 Cr.P.C statement has specifically admitted that she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner. She has also recorded her age as 18 years. So far as allegation of victim Rinku Kumari against the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the doctor has not found any sign of rape and her age was assessed by the doctor between 18-19 years. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. A statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the victim Rinku Kumari in her 164 Cr.P.C statement has specifically alleged against the petitioner that she was continuously

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68884 of 2021(5) dt.28-09-2022 3/3 raped by the petitioner after administering some obnoxious substance. The informant has also corroborated the prosecution story.

Considering the fact that the victim Rinku Kumari in her 164 Cr.P.C statement has specifically alleged commission of rape against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stands rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shageer/- U T