Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22720/2016rejected

Sikandar Kumar @ Kumar Sikandar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2016-07-12Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22720 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -220 Year- 2015 Thana -BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBEGUSARAI ====================================================== Sikandar Kumar @ Kumar Sikandar Kumar, Son of Late Umesh Thakur, Resident of village - Malti, P.S. Phulwaria, District - Begusarai .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anita Kumari Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Begusarai Muffassil (Singhaul) P.S Case No. 220 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 & 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, Falguni Devi, the daughter-in-law of the informant had gone to attend the coaching at Begusarai, but she did not return and her mobile was found switched off. During investigation, the victim was recovered and her statement has been recorded by the police as well as under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has supported the allegation of kidnapping against the petitioner and further that the petitioner committed rape with her.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22720 of 2016 (3) dt.12-07-2016 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that the victim is married and major one, she has gone out of her own sweet will but she has changed her version under pressure, she was found moving in Phulwariya market which is evident from paragraph 14 of the case diary and accordingly she was recovered. The petitioner without any fault is suffering in custody since 07.01.2016 and as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration, to which, the learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner and the statement of the victim, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T