Ranjan @ Chandradev Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89690 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2013 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== Ranjan @ Chandradev Manjhi Son of Late Biral Manjhi @ Tetar Mandal Resident of Village - Badhaichak, P.S. - Mohanpur, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Arjun Saw S/o- Late Ramdeo Saw R/oVill-Candhaul ps- Bodh gaya distgaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 02-07-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant was taking coaching classes and it is alleged that the master at the said coaching class enticed the daughter of the informant and fled away. It is further alleged that informant tried to contact the petitioner, he was assured that his daughter was with him and she would return in a few days. Finally after waiting for a few days when the daughter of the informant did
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89690 of 2024(5) dt.02-07-2025 2/3 not return, the present case was lodged on 18.06.2013.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. It has further been submitted that allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping the daughter of the informant is false as they both had gone out together and the daughter of the informant was with him out of her own will. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and the daughter of the informant had solemnized marriage and they were living happily and there was also a son born to them, who is presently living with the petitioner. The learned counsel next submits that the daughter of the informant thereafter fled away along with one boy, namely, Narendra. It has lastly been submitted that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and he is having clean antecedent and is in custody since 31.08.2024.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the case is of the year 2013 and the petitioner thereafter has been arrested by the police on 31.08.2024 and the victim girl has not yet been located and is still traceless.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has evaded for 11 years
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89690 of 2024(5) dt.02-07-2025 3/3 and was ultimately arrested and the victim is still traceless, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.
8. Considering the fact that the case is very old, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case expeditiously.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Siwani/- U T