Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Saw v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19643 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2023 Thana- KARANDAY District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Saw S/o Sunil Saw R/o VILLAGE - GHARI, P.S. - KARANDEY, DISTRICT - SHEIKHPURA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rabi Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Karandey P.S. Case No. 111 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is also submitted that the FIR has been instituted after a delay of seven days. It is next submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and during the course of investigation, nothing has come which could connect the petitioner with the offence directly.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19643 of 2024(2) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation is of kidnapping of a minor girl. It is further submitted that from the order impugned itself, it would manifest that the same records that at Para-35 of the case diary, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that she was kidnapped by this petitioner and Vikash. It is also submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she has alleged against this petitioner as stands recorded in the order impugned. It is further submitted that investigation in the case is still going on, as such, privilege of anticipatory bail may not be granted to the petitioner as allegation is of kidnapping a minor girl aged about thirteen and a half years.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T