Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21476/2023rejected

Sachin Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-13Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21476 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-462 Year-2022 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== SACHIN PASWAN SON OF DILIP PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PANCHGACHIYA, WARD NO. 48, P.S. - LAHARIASARAI, DISTT. - DARBHANGA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 27.09.2022 in connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No.462/2022, dated 14.09.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A of the IPC & Section 8 of POCSO Act.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons have abducted the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21476 of 2023(3) dt.13-07-2023 2/2 allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that in fact the petitioner was in love with the victim and victim on her own own sweet will has come with the petitioner and the petitioner has not abducted the victim.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand on the basis of material available on record and the case diary vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation that the date of birth of victim is 23.04.2008, so, at the time of occurrence, the victim was minor and the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is supported by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No.462/2022, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Darbhanga.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) amit/- U T