Purichandra Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69791 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2024 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Purichandra Manjhi, S/O Gopal Manjhi, Resident Of Village- Kamargama Kishanpur, P.S- Bathnaha, Distt.- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Bikau Kapar, S/o Mohit Kapar, R/o vill - Kamargama, P.S. - Bathnaha, Distt. - Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage. It has further been alleged that child marriage of the minor daughter of the informant has been solemnized with Puri Chandra by his parents.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69791 of 2024(5) dt.27-01-2025 2/2 has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that during couse of investigation, the victim was recovered. She has given her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that she has gone to Sitamarhi with her own will and that she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner in a temple. She was not kidnapped by anyone. A statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.04.2024.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitamarhi in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T