Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6653/2023bail rejected

Shailendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-18Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6653 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-688 Year-2022 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Shailendra Yadav, Son Of Bhikhan Yadav R/O Kabaiya Ward 27, P.S- (Kabaiya) Lakhisarai,Dist- Lakhisarai Bihar ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amaresh Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Lakhisarai (Kabaiya) P. S. Case No.688 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A)/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/10 of the POCSO Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, but wrongly in the impugned order, it has been recorded that petitioner has antecedent of three cases. It is next submitted that the informant alleges that his minor daughter left for coaching, but did not return. Further, on search, he came to know that accused persons including the petitioner enticed her away for purposes of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6653 of 2023(3) dt.18-07-2023 2/2 trafficking.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that petitioner and the victim are known to each other and the victim, on her own volition, had left with the petitioner.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and submits that the impugned order records that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she has levelled serious allegation of repeated rape and wrongful confinement.

6. Considering the submission made by the learned Additional P. P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T