Sanjay Sah @ Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27916 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2024 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sanjay Sah @ Sanjay Kumar Son of Paras Sah Resident of Village- Lauriya Mishra Tola, P.S.- Lauriya, Dist.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Phulkanti Devi, W/o- Dablu Chaudhary Vill-Lauriya, Dhobi Tola PSLauriya, Dist-West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-08-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No. 13 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 34, 341, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per allegation, the accused persons including the petitioner kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC has stated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27916 of 2024(3) dt.01-08-2024 2/2 that her parents had fixed her marriage with someone else, for which she didn't agree and in order to create pressure, they had given even electric shock to the victim. He has also submitted that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent and is under custody since 14.02.2024.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the date of birth of the victim is 05.04.2010 and hence her age is to be 14 years. The allegation against the petitioner is of kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, as well as the gravity of the allegation and also the fact that the victim is a minor girl, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T