Nanhak Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81781 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2023 Thana- MAKER District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

NANHAK MANJHI S/O LATE JHAGRU MANJHI R/O VILLAGEHASANPUR BAREWA, P.S- MAKER, DISTT.- SARAN. 2.

KUNTI DEVI W/O NANHAK MANJHI R/O VILLAGE- HASANPUYR BAREWA, P.S- MAKER, DISTT.- SARAN.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ankur Prakash Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 04-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Maker P.S. Case No. 43 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

3. Allegedly, all the accused persons including the petitioners are said to have kidnapped the informant's minor daughter with an intention of marriage.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81781 of 2023(2) dt.04-01-2024 2/2 Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is totally false and based on concocted facts. The real fact is that there is admitted land dispute between the parties and only with a view to grab the alleged land, he filed the present case against the petitioners. Co-accused Munna Kumar and Vibha Kumari are minor and their interim custody has been given to petitioner no.1 by Juvenile Board, Chapra. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim girl is still traceless, which is also evident from the impugned order. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of the anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as victim girl is still traceless, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T