Chunchun Yadav @ Chunchun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(From The Official Chambers Via Video Conferencing) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14210 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-608 Year-2020 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== CHUNCHUN YADAV @ CHUNCHUN KUMAR S/o Chandeshwar Ray R/o village- Dubiyahi, P.S.- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Nandan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kudhni P.S. Case No. 608 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354(b), 379, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 & 11 POCSO Act, Muzaffarpur.

As per allegation, Amrita Kumari the minor daughter of the informant was returning to her home from coaching center, on the way the petitioner along with co-accused Manish

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14210 of 2021(2) dt.12-01-2022 2/3 Yadav @ Laddu Yadav and Deepak Yadav stopped her and used force against her. On protest, the petitioner attempted to cut the vein of the left hand of Amrita Kumari by a sharp pechkas and when she started hue and cry they fled away by a motorcycle after snatching the mobile phone of the daughter of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and Amrita Kumari was student of the same coaching and after coaching the petitioner was returning by a motorcycle which slightly touched the victim and it was the reason that false case has been lodged. Learned counsel has further submitted that there was previous enmity between the family of the informant and co-accused Deepak Yadav and Manish Yadav.

The FIR shows itself that petitioner along with other co-accused persons not only attempted to outrage the modesty of the victim but also attempted to slit her vein of left hand. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIIth-cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, Muzaffarpur while rejecting the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner vide order dated 1.12.2020 has observed that the victim has sustained some injuries and the witnesses in Paragraph-7 and 8 of the case diary have supported

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14210 of 2021(2) dt.12-01-2022 3/3 the entire occurrence. In my view it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T