Arbind Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17239 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -127 Year- 2016 Thana -SHANKARPUR District- MADHEPURA ======================================================
1. Arbind Yadav, Son of Manohar Yadav, resident of Village Rampur, Lahi, P.S. Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyavarat Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-04-2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph -1 of bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2017 in connection with Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 127 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 452, 354B, 366, 380, 420, 504, 509 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused persons assaulted the informant and forcibly removed her hair in public and also forcibly married her with one Monu Kumar and forced her to leave the village. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence, and he has falsely been implicated in the present case and during the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17239 of 2017 (2) dt.17-04-2017 2/2 investigation also no witness has supported the above allegations. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.03.2017 and other co-accused person has already been granted bail. Heard learned A.P.P. also.
Having heard both sides, from perusal of the impugned order itself, it appears that in several paragraphs, witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also substantiated the allegations and the medical board has found the age of victim girl as 16 to 18 years, though a submission has been made that other co-accused has already been granted bail but since the petitioner is main accused in this case, I am not inclined to grant him the privilege of regular bail, it is accordingly rejected. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T