Sujeet Kamat @ Sujeet Kumar @ Sujeet Kumar Kamat v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13062 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2023 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sujeet Kamat @ Sujeet Kumar @ Sujeet Kumar Kamat Son of Mr. Hazari Kamat @ Hazari Prasad Kamat Resident of Village- Marnaiya, P.S. Ladaniya, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Fekan Kamat, R/V Marnaiya, P.S. Ladaniya, District - Madhubani. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh Mr. Ritwik Thakur For the State :
Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari For the Informant/OP-2 :
Mr.Vinod Kumar Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for informant / opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offence under Sections 323, 376, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per prosecution case, this petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and thereafter, this petitioner committed rape with the victim. It is further alleged that this petitioner kept the victim in the house from 12.12.2022 to 15.12.2022 and during this period,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13062 of 2024(3) dt.19-04-2024 2/2 the petitioner intoxicated the victim and sexually harassed her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is co-villager of the victim and due to land dispute, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that it is unbelievable that daughter of the informant remained for such a long time in the house of petitioner and no information whatsoever was given to anyone. Petitioner has got clean antecedent and is in custody since 19.10.2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the bail petition of this petitioner and submitted that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case.
6. Considering the nature of accusation, the prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T