Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5721/2022bail rejected

Satendra Bind @ Satendra Jamadar @ Satendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2022-08-23Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5721 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2021 Thana- CHIKSAUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== SATENDRA BIND @ SATENDRA JAMADAR @ SATENDRA PRASAD SON OF LATE BIRJE @ BIRJE JAMADAR R/O VILLAGE- SADARPUR, P.S.- CHIKSOURA, DISTRICT- NALANDA ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shambhu Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-08-2022 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 learned APP, Mr. J.N. Thakur for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chiksoura P.S. Case No. 109 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 (A), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

As per allegation, the informant on the pretext of assisting the ten years old daughter of the informant, in cutting fire wood he brought her in the jungle and after getting her seated on his thigh started molesting her details whereof has been mentioned in the fardbeyan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5721 of 2022(2) dt.23-08-2022 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated as there was previous enmity between the parties.

The learned Addl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. The victim is a ten years old girl. She in her statement under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. supported the occurrence. The provisions of POCSO Act have also been attracted. I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner 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