Pawan Kumar @ Neelu Kumar @ Neelu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15649 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -48 Year- 2015 Thana -KADAMKUAN District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Pawan Kumar @ Neelu Kumar @ Neelu Son of Anjani Ram Resident of Village- Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 1, Ambedkar Colony, P.s - Kadam kuan District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.N.Pandit(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the informant.
As per the allegations made in the written petition by the informant, on 30-1-2015 at about 7 A.M. the informant had gone to leave her daughter to Sunrise Coaching Centre, Machhua Toli, , and after leaving her at the Coaching Centre, he returned to his house, and again at about 10 A.M. he went to the Coaching Centre to bring back her daughter, but she was not there. During search he came to know that his daughter Minu Kumari aged about 14 years was enticed away by the petitioner with his uncle Ajay Ram on false pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that on 1-2-2015 the daughter of the informant returned back to her house and disclosed that the petitioner took her from Coaching Centre for fun, and she went with the petitioner. It is further alleged that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15649 of 2015 (2) dt.08-06-2015 2 / 2 petitioner, Dhananjay, Ajy Ram, Abhay Kumar and Anil@ Ganga Kumar forcibly established sexual relation with the girl. On raising alarm Ajay Ram threatened her to kill the whole of her family.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and he has got no criminal antecedent.
It has been submitted on behalf of the State and the informant that the victim girl has been examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. where she has supported the allegation of being raped by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in jail only since 5-2-2015. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim is annexed as Annexure-2 to the present application. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. Anyhow, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year. BK.Roy/- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T