Patna High Court

Suraj Manjhi @ Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 18 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court declined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Suraj Manjhi was charged with kidnapping and outraging the modesty of a 15‑year‑old girl, the daughter of the informant, under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act. He applied for bail, claiming he was falsely implicated due to a prior dispute and that a medical examination showed no evidence of sexual assault. The prosecution, supported by the minor’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s support for the charges. The court noted the victim’s corroborated statement and the gravity of the allegations, and therefore refused to grant bail. However, the court allowed the petitioner to seek bail again if the trial does not make substantial progress within the stipulated period.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the charges of kidnapping and outraging modesty of a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 3(5), 61(1), 96
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6

Subjects

bail
kidnapping
rape
minor
POCSO Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
medical report
false implication

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66294 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-669 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Suraj Manjhi @ Suraj Kumar S/O Mohan Manjhi R/O Vill.- Jaukatiya, Ward
                 no. 3, P.S.- Majhauliya, Dist.- West Champaran.     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Neyaz Sai S/O Late Adalat Sai R/O Vill.- Jaukatiya, Ward no. 3, P.S.-
                  Majhauliya, Dist.- West Champaran.
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
                 For the Informant       :       Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   18-02-2026                      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

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

                   offence punishable under Sections 137(2)/96/61(1)/3(5) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/6 of the POCSO

                   Act.

                                   3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along

                   with other co-accused is said to have kidnapped the daughter of

                   the informant with an intention to solemnize marriage and when

                   the victim protested, the petitioner outraged her modesty.

                                   4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

                   petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this

                   case on account of an earlier dispute between the informant and

                   the petitioner. It is further submitted that as against the allegation

                   of committing rape upon the victim, the medical report of the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66294 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      victim girl indicates that, according to clinical and pathological

                      examination, there is no sign of any sexual assault. It is also

                      submitted that the charges have been framed against the

                      petitioner, who has no criminal antecedent and has been

                      languishing in custody since 18.07.2025.

                                      5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for

                      the informant vehemently opposed the bail petition on the

                      ground that the victim has fully supported the allegations in her

                      statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS and she is minor

                      also aged about 15 years. Learned counsel for the informant

                      undertakes that the informant would produce his witnesses

                      within a period of six months.

                                   6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances

                      of the case and also considering the fact that the victim has fully

                      supported the case in her statement recorded under Section 183

                      BNSS, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

                                   7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew

                      his prayer for bail if substantial progress in the trial is not made

                      within the stipulated period, which has been undertaken by the

                      learned counsel for the informant.


                                                (Soni Shrivastava, J)

Trivedi/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…