Bintu Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26608 of 2015 (3) dt.09-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26608 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -70 Year- 2015 Thana -NANHPUR District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Bintu Kumar Sharma Son of Rambriksh Sharma, resdient of village- Bala sath, Police Station- NAnpur, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pancham Lal Jaiswal For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar (App) For the Informant :

Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No. 70 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 8 of POCSO Act and Sections 67(A), 67 (B) of I. T. Act. The minor daughter of the informant used to attend Sunshine Coaching run by the petitioner and the petitioner committed rape upon her by causing threats and further got Videography done through Prabhu Raut and on that ground she was caused threats to develop further sexual relationship and then the victim told all story of commission of continuous rape with her

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26608 of 2015 (3) dt.09-10-2015 to her parents and then the case was registered. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim due to dirty village politics. The doctor has found the age of the victim 17-18 years, the petitioner has not made any Videography of the victim nor he has committed rape with her and he is suffering in custody since 12.03.2015 without any fault.

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that pen drive containing the objectionable video has been seized vide para 37 of the case diary and mobile has also been seized whereon the video was circulated vide para 40 of the case diary. The victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which has been kept in sealed cover in the court itself and as such the petitioner does not deserve bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above and considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T