Nitish Kumar @ Manoranjan @ Bablu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1653 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2023 Thana- KURTHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Nitish Kumar @ Manoranjan @ Bablu S/O Ravikant Singh @ Chhavikant Yadav @ Ravikant Yadav R/O Village- Chamandi, P.S.- Kurtha, DistrictArwal. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
X Son of Y R/O Village- Chamandi, P.S.- Kurtha, District- Arwal. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Hastina Pratap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 11-04-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Kurtha P.S. Case no. 115 of 2023 registered under sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his daughter who left home at 9 a.m. on 1.4.2023 did not return and was not to be found inspite of search.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He is not named in the F.I.R. From the contents of the prosecution case it would transpire that the daughter of the informant left only for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1653 of 2025(4) dt.11-04-2025 2/3 the reason that she had failed in the matriculation examination. The petitioner was falsely implicated because of village politics. Referring to the deposition of the victim girl in course of trial in the learned trial Court it is submitted that she has not made any allegations of overt act against this petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 4.10.2023 and there being no chance of the conviction of the petitioner, he be enlarged on bail. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. together with the contents of the statement of the victim recorded in course of trial, the deposition having been brought on record as Annexure-P/2 to the petition wherein she has made allegations against this petitioner of having taken her away on two occasions and the trial having proceeded, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
8. It is clarified that none of the observations made herein above in this order shall be used by either of the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1653 of 2025(4) dt.11-04-2025 3/3 so far as the trial in the learned trial Court is concerned. (Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T