Dismissed¶21

Gopal Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Apr 2024CR. MISC./23992/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No.23992 of 2024; Partha Sarthy, J; 19-04-2024; Gopal Manjhi v. State of Bihar; regular bail rejection; Section 366A IPC; minor girl aged 16 taken away; Fatehpur PS Case 22/2023 Gaya; co-accused Nagina Manjhi; love affair plea; Section 164 Cr.P.C statement; Juvenile Justice Board Gaya transfer; medical age assessment 18-19 years; custody since 19.6.2023; renewal of bail after six months or framing of charge.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to renew the prayer for bail after six months or after framing of charge, whichever is earlier. ¶21

Gopal Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23992 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2023 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Gopal Manjhi S/o Nagina Manjhi R/o Village- Shitalpur, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta,

¶10

======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 19-04-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶15

grant of regular bail in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case no.22 of 2023, registered under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his 16 year old daughter disappeared and was not to be found inspite of search. Subsequently, it transpired that the petitioner had taken her away. Co-accused Nagina Manjhi was also involved in the occurrence.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that it was a case of love affair between the petitioner and the informant’s daughter, their age being about the same. It is for this reason that the case of the petitioner was also transferred to

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23992 of 2024(3) dt.19-04-2024 2/2

¶19

the Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya, however in absence of any school certificate, age of the petitioner was medically assessed and found to be between 18-19 years. Referring to the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, it is submitted that from the contents thereof it would be evident that the daughter of the informant had gone with the petitioner out of her own freewill. The petitioner is in custody since 19.6.2023 and undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial.

¶20

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner in the FIR wherein the petitioner is said to have taken away the minor daughter of the informant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or after framing of charge, whichever is earlier.

¶23

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶24

Shiv/-

¶25

U T

Gopal Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Kailash Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Sahani @ Pradeep Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Madhuri Devi Vs the State of Bihar

Prahlad Bahardar Vs the State of Bihar