SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

PATNA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH PATNA
VIKASH KUMAR @ VIKASH KUMAR MANJHI – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CR. MISC. 3544/2022



Advocates:
['Satyendra Kumar Singh', '', 'Hari Shankar Roy', 'Anant Kumar']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3544 of 2022

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2021 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran

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

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Manjhi Son of Premchand Manjhi Resident

of Village- Badauli, P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran (Chapra).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh

Mr. Hari Shankar Roy

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendraa Kumar, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR

PANDEY

ORAL ORDER

2

10-08-2022

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to

remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within

one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences

alleged under Sections 376, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 4, 6, 8 of PACSO Act read with Section 67 I.T.

Act, registered in connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No.

96/2021.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that though the prosecutrix has stated in the FIR that accused

persons including the petitioner committed rape upon her after

kidnapping her, but the FIR was lodged after 5 days of the

occurrence on 2nd April 2021. The statement of the victim was

recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 13th August, 2021

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3544 of 2022(2) dt.10-08-2022

2/2

in which she denied the allegation of rape. She has stated that

none had committed rape upon her. Only they dropped her in

the house of Phua.

Considering the fact that the prosecutrix did not

support her version of rape in her statement under Section 164

of the Cr.P.C., let the petitioner above-named, in the event of

his arrest or surrender within four weeks from the date of

communication of this order, be released on bail on furnishing

bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) within two sureties of

the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive

Special Judge, POCSO Saran (Chapra) in connection with

Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2021, subject to the conditions as

laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the

petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove,

failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this

Court.

HR/-

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

U

T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top