Rahul Kumar @ Golu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30023 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2023 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Rahul Kumar @ Golu Son of Ashok Prasad R/v- - Baignabad, P.S.- Bihar, Dist.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kumari Sujata Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sangeeta Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 10-05-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bihar P.S. Case no. 185 of 2023 registered under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant's minor daughter was kidnapped by unknown accused persons and was not to be found inspite of search.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is delay of 2-3 days in lodging of the F.I.R. The daughter of the informant went with the petitioner out of her own free will and everyone knew about their love affair. They have married. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30023 of 2024(3) dt.10-05-2024 2/2 statement under section 164 Cr.P.C has been given by the daughter of the informant under family pressure. The petitioner is in custody since 27.2.2023.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it transpires that the daughter of the informant was aged about 14 years 9 months on the date of occurrence. Even as per the medical report she was aged about 15-16 years. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C she has made categorical allegations against the petitioner of having kidnapped her and having forcibly established physical relations with her. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the victim in course of trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T