Dismissed¶25

Mahendra Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Dec 2025CR. MISC./43299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection under Sections 318(4)/64 BNS 2023 and Sections 8/12 POCSO Act; rape of victim girl; Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 475 of 2024, District Nawada; three-month delay in FIR and plea of consensual relationship urged by defence; victim's Section 183 BNSS statement and medical report weighed against bail; custody since 18.10.2024; no criminal antecedent; charge-sheet filed; direction to expedite trial; liberty to renew bail prayer after four months; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43299 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; however, liberty granted to renew the bail prayer before the Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within four months, and the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. ¶25

Mahendra Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43299 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-475 Year-2024 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada

¶3

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

¶4

Mahendra Manjhi S/O Hando Manjhi Resident of village- Mathgulni, PSPakribarawan, District- Nawada

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Gauri Kumari D/O Bago Manjhi Resident of village- Kachna, PSPakribarawan, District- Nawada

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

6 15-12-2025

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 475 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 318(4), 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.

¶17

Allegation against the petitioner is of commission of rape upon the victim girl.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that there is a

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43299 of 2025(6) dt.15-12-2025 2/3

¶20

delay of three months in lodging the FIR without any plausible explanation, which in itself, raises doubt over the prosecution story. Learned counsel further submitted that, as a matter of fact, the victim was in love with the petitioner and when she learnt that the petitioner is already married, she lodged the false case against the petitioner. The petitioner never forced victim to establish physical relations. Learned counsel further submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that it is case of consensual relationship. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶21

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has corroborated the contents of the FIR and the same is further substantiated by the medical report of the victim, and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. Learned APP further submitted that police after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 318(4), 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43299 of 2025(6) dt.15-12-2025 3/3

¶24

of the case as also Section 183 BNSS statement of the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶25

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

¶26

Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶27

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to

¶28

renew the prayer for grant of bail before the Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within a period of four motnhs from today. If any such application is filed before the learned court below, the court concerned shall consider the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

¶29

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶30

Alok Verma/-

¶31

U T

Mahendra Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra 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

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar through Sri Dipak Kumar Singh Additional Chief Secretary

Amod Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Tanveer Shekh Vs The State of Bihar

Sidhi Ram @ Sidhnath Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Nirmala Devi @ Nira Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Ashish Pandey Vs The State of Bihar