Patna High Court
Mantu kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the accusations were specific, the offences were grave, and the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC substantiated the prosecution's case.
Summary
Mantu Kumar sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR alleging kidnapping of a minor girl (Section 363 IPC), rape of the minor (Section 366A IPC) and related offences (Section 34 IPC). The prosecution presented a statement of the minor victim recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, supporting the charges. The petitioner contended innocence, claiming a false case arising from a petty dispute and highlighted his clean antecedents. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific nature of the accusation, the seriousness of the offences, and the victim's recorded statement. The Court, after considering these factors, rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, finding the gravity of the allegations and the victim's testimony sufficient to deny bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor under Sections 363, 366A and 34 of the IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- rape of minor
- IPC
- CrPC
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54777 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2021 Thana- BAJPATTI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Mantu kumar S/o Ramsagar Rai R/o Village - Nimahi, P.S- Bajpatti, District-
Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhola Rai S/o Late Bilas Rai R/o Village - Nimahi, P.S - Bajpatti, District-
Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand
Pandit, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner kidnapped the minor daughter of informant and
committed rape.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. As a matter of fact, both parties are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54777 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/2
Gotiyas and due to petty dispute, this false and concocted case
has been lodged. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
with specific accusation that he kidnapped the daughter of
informant and committed rape. The victim is minor and in her
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she has
supported the prosecution case.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C., the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…