Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17601/2023rejected

Priyanshu Pathak v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-19Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17601 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2022 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== PRIYANSHU PATHAK son of Benkatesh Pathak Village- Teyay Pathak Tola Ward No-10 Ps- Bhagwanpur Teyay Dist- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 28.06.2022 in connection with Bhagwanpur (Tiyay) P.S. Case No. 121/2022, dated 26.06.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 372, 373, 34 of the IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956. Later on Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act was added.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner, being the brother of the informant is alleged to have abducted the minor daughter of the informant and sold her at brothel in Chaturbhuj Asthan, Muzaffarpur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17601 of 2023(3) dt.19-07-2023 2/2 implicated in the present case. The petitioner is own brother of the informant and the victim is the niece of the petitioner. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that there is no question of kidnapping could be attributed against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand on the basis of material available on record and the case diary vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she has categorically stated that the petitioner has abducted her and after sometime she was sold in Chaturbhuj Asthan, Muzaffarpur.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Bhagwanpur (Teyay) P.S. Case no. 121/2022, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Begusarai.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) amit/- U T