Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82131/2024bail rejected

Manish Das @ Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-24Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82131 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2023 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya ====================================================== Manish Das @ Manish Kumar Son of Lallan Das Resident of Village- Chet Bigha PS- Konch District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Pathak For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, the minor daughter of the victim went missing on 03.08.2023, later on, the informant came to know that this petitioner kidnapped his daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is discrepancy in the statement of the victim, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. As per medical report, the age of the victim is between 17-18 years and medical report does not support the allegation. He further submits that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has stated that if the petitioner would return her Rs. 17,000/-,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82131 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2025 2/2 then she would withdraw her case. Petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2024.

5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the bail petition and submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he kidnapped the daughter of the victim and victim, in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, has categorically stated that this petitioner forcibly committed rape with her and took away her to Delhi, kept her there for 14 days and continuously made physical relation with her.

6. Considering the nature of the offence and statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T