Shubham Kumar Choudhary @ Shubham Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18673 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2021 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Shubham Kumar Choudhary @ Shubham Choudhary, Son of Late Braj Bhushan Choudhary Resident of village - Chandchaur Dih, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, Distt.- Samstipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gaurav Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 28-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No.223/2021 instituted under Sections 342,376,114,34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3,5,6 of Immoral Trafficking Act, 1956.

As per the allegation made in the FIR, the informant, a Police Sub-Inspector has alleged that upon secret information about the accused persons, the police raided the house of the petitioner herein. The accused Subham Kumar Choudhary as also Anand Mohan Jha tried to escape but were apprehended by the police. To their surprise, they heard the screening of the girls and when they went inside, two girls were there, namely Rakhi

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18673 of 2022(2) dt.28-07-2022 2/2 Ray and Sanchita Das, who disclosed that they have been brought from Kolkata on the pretext of job but upon reaching here, the accused person tried to establish physical relationships with them. The statement of the girls have been corroborated in the statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Considering the fact that the allegations of the immoral trafficking is against the petitioner as also that he is named in sixteen (16) criminal cases, this Court is not inclined to grant him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected. Considering the fact that the petitioner is named in sixteen (16) criminal cases within the said district, let a copy be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur for his perusal and necessary action.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T