Suraj Manjhi @ Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66294 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-669 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Suraj Manjhi @ Suraj Kumar S/O Mohan Manjhi R/O Vill.- Jaukatiya, Ward no. 3, P.S.- Majhauliya, Dist.- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Neyaz Sai S/O Late Adalat Sai R/O Vill.- Jaukatiya, Ward no. 3, P.S.- Majhauliya, Dist.- West Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2)/96/61(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused is said to have kidnapped the daughter of the informant with an intention to solemnize marriage and when the victim protested, the petitioner outraged her modesty.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on account of an earlier dispute between the informant and the petitioner. It is further submitted that as against the allegation of committing rape upon the victim, the medical report of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66294 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026 2/2 victim girl indicates that, according to clinical and pathological examination, there is no sign of any sexual assault. It is also submitted that the charges have been framed against the petitioner, who has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 18.07.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail petition on the ground that the victim has fully supported the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS and she is minor also aged about 15 years. Learned counsel for the informant undertakes that the informant would produce his witnesses within a period of six months.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the victim has fully supported the case in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if substantial progress in the trial is not made within the stipulated period, which has been undertaken by the learned counsel for the informant.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T