Patna High Court
Jugnu Manjhi @ Pari Manjhi @ Paro ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage due to the seriousness of the offence and the commencement of trial.
Summary
The petitioners, three men from Nawada district, were charged under Section 70(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for the alleged rape of a minor, the daughter of an informant. They applied for regular bail, contending that they are innocent, have no criminal antecedents, and that the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution's claim. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the fact that the trial had already commenced, and relying on a Supreme Court precedent that discourages bail in such cases. The court, after hearing both sides, rejected the bail application, noting the gravity of the charge and the stage of the proceedings. It allowed the petitioners to file a fresh bail application after the victim is examined, should she not support the prosecution's case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to accused persons in a serious offence such as rape of a minor after the trial has commenced.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse and lack of prior criminal record justify bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guidance in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (SLP(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024) is applicable to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 70(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- serious offence
- trial commencement
- medical evidence
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86331 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-482 Year-2025 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Jugnu Manjhi @ Pari Manjhi @ Paro Manjhi, Son of Doman Manjhi, R/o
Village - Chandipur Mushari, P.S. - Warisaliganj in the district of Nawada.
2. Vinma Manjhi @ Arvind Manjhi, Son of Bhajju Manjhi, R/o Village -
Chandipur Mushari, P.S. - Warisaliganj in the district of Nawada.
3. Chhote Manjhi, Son of Lali Manjhi, R/o Village - Chandipur Mushari, P.S. -
Warisaliganj in the district of Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XX Wife of Nageshwar Manjhi, R/o Village - Chandipur Mushari, P.S. -
Warsiliganj in the district of Nawada.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection
with Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 482 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 70(2) of B.N.S. and Section 4
of POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioners along with one other have committed rape with the
daughter of the informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86331 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. They
have been falsely implicated in the present case. During course of
investigation, the witnesses who have posed themselves as eye
witness, have not supported the case of the prosecution and from
perusal of the medical examination report, it is clear that doctor
has not found any recent sign of sexual intercourse whereas final
opinion is reserved as F.S.L. report has not come yet. It has
further been submitted that though the victim has stated that the
petitioners and one other have committed rape with her but the
medical report does not support the version of the prosecution. A
statement has been made in para-3 of the petition that the
petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, they are
languishing in judicial custody since 20.09.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of
regular bail and have submitted that the victim is minor and there
is allegation of gang rape against the petitioners. It has further
been submitted that in this case, trial has started. The informant
has been examined in this case.
6. Learned APP for the State has also relied on a
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr passed in SLP(Criminal) No. 13378 of
2024 wherein in para- ‘14’, Hon’ble Apex Court has held which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86331 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
is being quoted hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the
bail application of the accused.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage and, as such, their
prayer for bail stands rejected.
8. However, petitioners may renew their prayer for bail
after examination of the victim if the victim does not support the
case of the prosecution.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…