Vinod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22783 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2022 Thana- BELA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Vinod Kumar S/o Late Ram Dular Rai R/o village- Phulhatta, P.S.- Bela, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 15-09-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bela P.S. Case No. 08 of 2022 lodged under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 4, 6, 8 of POCSO Act.

As per the F.I.R. the allegation of kidnapping of minor girl of informant is there. From the order passed by the POCSO Court, it transpires that the age of victim was admittedly 16 years from the school certificate. In the statement under Section 164, the victim girl has supported the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22783 of 2022(4) dt.15-09-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent committed no offence. He submits that in the F.I.R. itself, informant accepted that mobile has been gifted by the present petitioner to the daughter of the informant which indicates that there is a love affair going on between the petitioner and the alleged victim.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation of kidnapping is there in the F.I.R. which was supported in statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at present.

But the petitioner has liberty to move for bail 6 months after framing of charge.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) prakashmani/- U T