Manu Das @ Mannu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31726 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2020 Thana- GAUNAHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== MANU DAS @ MANNU KUMAR S/o Sodil Das @ Sodina Das R/o villageRoari, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code and 8 of the POCSO Act.

As per allegation, the petitioner enticed away the minor daughter of the informant. The other accused persons made pressure upon the informant to marry her with the present petitioner Mannu Kumar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31726 of 2021(3) dt.18-04-2022 2/2 has also submitted that both the parties have compromised the case. On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. Mr. J.N. Thakur, has submitted that the victim was recovered and her statement was recorded in paragraph 36 of the case diary. The alleged victim has specifically stated that the present petitioner wrapped her face by gamcha, forcibly got her seated in a tempo and kidnapped her. She has also levelled allegation against the present petitioner to commit rape upon her.

There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he kidnapped minor daughter of the informant and also committed rape, as such, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

As both the parties have compromised the case the learned lower court is directed to expedite the case and dispose it of as early as possible.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T