Dismissed¶25

Sanjay Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Apr 2025CR. MISC./71671/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refusal — Sanjay Mandal v. The State of Bihar & Rubi Devi, Patna High Court Crl. Misc. No.71671 of 2024, decided 21-04-2025, Sourendra Pandey, J. Regular bail denied in Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020, Bhagalpur (IPC Ss. 366(A), 34, later 376, 120(b), 504, 34) concerning alleged abduction and rape of the informant's minor daughter missing since 15.02.2020. Victim supported prosecution in 161/164 Cr.PC statements; medical report puts age at 14-16 years; petitioner in custody since 17.06.2024; counsel cited FIR delay of three days and brick-supply money dispute. Application dismissed; trial court told to conclude trial in about three months.

What did the court decide?

None; regular bail denied at present and petitioner remains in custody, with the trial court directed to expedite and conclude the trial within about three months.

Sanjay Mandal Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; regular bail denied at present and petitioner remains in custody, with the trial court directed to expedite and conclude the trial within about three months.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to petitioner Sanjay Mandal, accused in Bhagalpur Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020 under Sections 366(A), 34 and subsequently 376, 120(b), 504 and 34 IPC.

¶14

Court's answer

Regular bail refused to the petitioner at present, taking the submissions of both sides into consideration.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court is expected to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within the further period of about three months indicated in its report.

¶24

Key takeaways

The bail application is dismissed.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sourendra Pandey, J., oral order dated 21-04-2025) dismissed the regular-bail application of Sanjay Mandal, accused in Bhagalpur Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020, registered under Sections 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Sections 376, 120(b), 504 and 34 subsequently added. The FIR arose from the disappearance of informant Rubi Devi's daughter on 15.02.2020 after she left for school to collect her matriculation admit card; following an alleged altercation and threat some fifteen days earlier, the petitioner's wife was alleged to have told the informant that the FIR-named persons took the girl away with intention to marry. Informant's counsel and the A.P.P. opposed bail, pointing to the victim's support of the prosecution in her S. 164 and S. 161 Cr.PC statements and a medical report placing her age between 14 and 16 years; petitioner's counsel urged clean antecedents, false implication, absence of eye-witness, a three-day delay in lodging the FIR, an admitted brick-supply money dispute, and custody since 17.06.2024. The court declined bail at present and, noting the trial court's report that another three months would be needed, directed expedition and conclusion of the trial within that period.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71671 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2020 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur

¶3

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

¶4

Sanjay Mandal Son of Late Hriday Mandal R/o Village- Uday Rampur, P.S. - Ghogha, Dist.- Bhagalpur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Rubi Devi, W/o shailendra kumar R/o vill- Fatehpur, P.S.- Industrial Area, Distt-Bhagalpur.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuri Lata, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶12

7 21-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶13

counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bhagalpur Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added under Sections 376 120(b), 504 and 34 of the Indian of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Rubi Devi submitted a written report that on 15.02.2020, at about 10:00 AM, her daughter went to school to take her matriculation admit card, but till 04:00 PM, when she did not return, then informant searched for her daughter, but she was traceless. It is alleged

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71671 of 2024(7) dt.21-04-2025 2/3

¶17

that 15 days prior to the said incident, some altercation took place between the petitioner and the informant, in which petitioner threatened the informant to teach a lesson. Informant went to the house of petitioner to search for her daughter then the wife of petitioner told her that all FIR named persons including the petitioner took away her daughter with intention to marry.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in this case, wherein he has been alleged to have committed rape upon the informant’s daughter. Learned counsel further submits that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, the FIR has been lodged with the delay of three days and there is admittedly a dispute with regard to some transaction of money for supply of brick. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2024 and the possibility of the trial to conclude does not seem probable in near furture.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the victim girl has supported the prosecution story in both her Cr.PCs statements i.e., 164 Cr.PC

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71671 of 2024(7) dt.21-04-2025 3/3

¶21

as well as 161 Cr.PC statements. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of the medical examination report, it is clear that the victim is between the age of 14 to 16 years. It is further stated that the prosecution shall not cause any delay in the trial of the said case and thus it is expedient that the trial court shall complete the evidence of the prosecution witnesses within three months from today and thereafter conclude the trial within the aforesaid period as stated in the report.

¶22

6. Taking the aforesaid submissions into consideration, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail at present.

¶23

7. However, as from the perusal of the report, which the learned trial court has sent, stating therein that it would be another three months to conclude the trial of the case.

¶24

8. The learned trial court is expected to expedite the trial of the case and try to conclude the same within the aforesaid period.

¶25

9. The application is therefore dismissed.

¶26

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

¶27

Siwani/-

¶28

U T

Sanjay Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Mandal 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

Asgar Ali @ Asgar Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ajit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Sahni @ Ritesh Vs The State of Bihar

Bablu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Mithun Kumar @ Mithun Mandal Vs The State of Bihar