Dismissed

Mukesh Manjhi v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Apr 2024CR. MISC./82617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court rejected a bail application by petitioners charged with rape and sexual assault (POCSO) under IPC 376D and other sections. The petitioners argued false implication and hostile witness testimony as grounds for bail. Despite trial commencement, the court denied bail citing serious allegations and trial progress, directing expedited conclusion within four months.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within four months.

Mukesh Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82617 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

MUKESH MANJHI SON OF VILAY MANJHI R/O VILLAGEAMARPUR, P.S.- FATEHPUR, DIST.- GAYA

¶5

JHAGADU MANJHI SON OF BITHAL MANJHI R/O VILLAGEAMARPUR, P.S.- FATEHPUR, DIST.- GAYA

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 09-04-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioners have preferred this application for

¶14

grant of regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case no. 15 of 2023 registered under sections 376D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, the fourteen year old informant states that the petitioners committed rape on her.

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The trial has commenced and the informant was also examined as PW 1 in course of trial wherein she has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82617 of 2023(4) dt.09-04-2024 2/2

¶18

The petitioners are in custody since 22.2.2023 and there being no chance of conviction of the petitioners, they be enlarged on bail. They undertake to cooperate in the trial.

¶19

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶21

taking into consideration the direct allegations against the petitioners of having committed rape on the minor informant together with the progress in the trial in the learned trial Court wherein six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected.

¶22

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial

¶23

and to conclude the same at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶25

Bibhash

Mukesh Manjhi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Manjhi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jainath Singh Vs Bishwanath Rai and Ors.

Most. Indra Devi and Anr. Vs Smt. Lalita Devi

Banwari Yadav and Anr. Vs Baldeo Chaudhary and Ors.

Chandrama Paswan Vs the State of Bihar

Madhaw Dinbandhu Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar