Sonu @ Sanju Roy @ Sanju Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26014 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -256 Year- 2013 Thana -KESARIA District- EAST CHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Sonu @ Sanju Roy @ Sanju Rai, S/O Tara Bodo Rai, Resident of village + P.S Bhadeshar, District-Hugli, Kolkatta.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in Kesharia P.S. Case No.256 of 2013 registered under Sections 363, 366A, 372, 376, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which is pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Rina Devi @ Dhrupati Devi, who is the mother of Rina Kumari, lodged information with the police that her daughter is traceless from Keshariya Middle School after lunch since 12.10.2013. The informant tried to search her out but in vain. It has further been alleged that the informant has suspicion that her daughter

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26014 of 2015 (2) dt.27-07-2015 2/2 has been kept anywhere else by one Urmila Devi for the purpose of marriage.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 7.7.2014 and charge sheet has been submitted in the case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

It has been submitted on behalf of the State that as per the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the victim, it is alleged that the victim was taken to Kolkata where she was being made to torture and illegal activities. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The same is, accordingly, rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to take all necessary steps to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) PNM U T