Pintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.481 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2023 Thana- KAJRA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Pintu Singh Son of Badho Singh @ Late Brahmadeo Singh R/o vill - Arma (Madanpur), P.O. - Arma, P.S. - Kajra, Dist. - Lakhisarai ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sulekha Devi W/o Lokesh Das R/o vill - Bikrampur, P.O. and P.s. - Kajra, Distt. - Lakhisarai ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Usha Kumari 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for setting aside the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIth-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Lakhisarai in connection with Kajra P.S. Case No. 26 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3(i)(r)/3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.481 of 2024(5) dt.31-07-2024 2/2

3. Informant is a mother of the victim. The victim is a child of 14 years. The allegation against the petitioner and coaccused is that they forcibly kidnapped the victim. When the informant went to the house of the petitioners, his family members abused her calling her caste names.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated.

5. After recovery of the victim, her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded. She categorically stated that the petitioner and co-accused Shivam forcibly abducted her and she was made captive in a room in Patna City. She also stated that Pintu, the petitioner and co-accused Shivam continuously committed rape upon her.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the nature of the case and the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T