Sintu Poddar @ Sintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25041 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2024 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Sintu Poddar @ Sintu Kumar Son Of Bangtu Poddar @ Bantu Poddar Resident Of Village- Madhopur, Ps- Nathnagar, Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
Anita Devi Wife Of Anil Mandal Resident Of Village- Madhopur, PsNathnagar, Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-05-2024 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Nathnagar P.S. Case No.24 of 2024 under Sections 341, 323, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against sole accused (the petitioner) against whom there is allegation of rape with the niece of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25041 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 2/2 that the entire allegation is false and he has unnecessarily been made accused in this case. He further submits that medial report is not supporting the allegation made in the F.I.R.
5. Counsel also submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean.
6. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation of rape with minor girl is there in the F.I.R.
7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order, the contents of F.I.R. have been supported by the victim in her statement under sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and in the medical report, her age was ascertained by the doctor between 12-14 years.
8. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T