Patna High Court

Bittu ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings.

Summary

Bittu Manjhi was arrested in connection with kidnapping of a minor girl and alleged rape, facing charges under Sections 363, 366(A), 506 and 120(B) of the IPC. The petitioner contended that he has a clean record, was falsely implicated, and that the victim’s medical report did not corroborate the rape allegation. He also highlighted that a co‑accused, Arun Pandey, had been granted anticipatory bail in a related matter. The State opposed bail, pointing to the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC that implicated the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the Court was not persuaded by the lack of medical evidence and refused to grant bail at this stage. The Court ordered that the petitioner may renew his bail application after the charge‑framing stage.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial for offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 506 and 120(B) of the IPC.
Whether the absence of medical corroboration of the rape allegation affects the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 363, 366A, 506

Subjects

bail
kidnapping
rape allegation
anticipatory bail
IPC
CrPC
high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48031 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2024 Thana- SIDHWALIYA District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Bittu Manjhi Son of Ramchandra Manjhi Resident of Village - Dangsi, P.S.-
                 Sidhwalia, District - Gopalganj.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   24-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 506 and

                   120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody

                   since 17.04.2025 and the informant alleges that on account of

                   previous enmity, the accused persons including the petitioner

                   kidnapped her minor daughter, aged about 15 years, for some

                   immoral purpose.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

                   informant. It is next submitted that victim has come back and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48031 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
                                            2/3




          her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein

          she has alleged allegation of rape against Anand and petitioner

          but then it is submitted that the injury report does not

          corroborate the allegation of rape as hymen was found intact

          and the age of the victim was assessed in between 18-19 years.

          It is also submitted that Arun Pandey had approached this Court

          seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous

          No.11569 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order

          dated 16.04.2025. It is also submitted that the fact that medical

          report does not corroborate the allegation of rape is recorded in

          the order dated 16.04.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.11569

          of 2025.

                       5. The learned APP opposes the bail application and

          submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section

          164 Cr.P.C. has not whispered anything against Arun Pandey but

          then the victim alleges rape against Anand and this petitioner on

          which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

          reiterates and submits that allegation of rape is not corroborated

          by the injury report.

                       6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the

          Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

          Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48031 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
                                                           3/3




                         hereby rejected in connection with Sidhwalia P.S. Case No.163

                         of 2024, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

                         Class, Gopalganj.

                                      7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to

                         renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.


                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Sanjay/-

U          T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…