Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8510 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2022 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar S/o Mahendra Mahto R/o Vill - Bakhari, P.S.- Bathnaha, Dist. - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Devendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No.182/2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 8 of POCSO Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a young boy aged about 22 years. It is next submitted that if the petitioner in the nature of allegation is sent to judicial custody, his entire career would be jeopardized and chances are bright that he may come in contact with hardened criminal, which will further restrict his future prospect. It is further submitted that the informant in the F.I.R. alleges that his minor daughter for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8510 of 2024(2) dt.04-03-2024 2/3 purposes of marriage was kidnapped by the accused persons including the petitioner. It is next submitted that the entire family members of the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that it was not a case of kidnapping/abduction rather it was a case of elopement. It is next submitted that after the victim was recovered, her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has not supported the case of the prosecution as would manifest from the order impugned. It is next submitted that the informant with a view to give seriousness to the case falsely alleged in the F.I.R. that the victim was a minor aged about 15 years. It is further submitted that the victim was 18 years of age and after the occurrence, the informant got her married to another person.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8510 of 2024(2) dt.04-03-2024 3/3 Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitamarhi, in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No.182/2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

6. However, it is made clear that the O.P. No.2 shall be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in the event if the victim has not been married to another person. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T