← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35309/2021rejected

Bittu Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan @ Bittu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-17Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35309 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran ====================================================== BITTU KUMAR @ RAVI RANJAN @ BITTU KUMAR Son of Bashisht Narayan @ Janmanjay Rai Resident of Village- Lachmanpur, Post OfficeKamla Gopalpur, Police Station- Neora, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35876 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

BRAJESH KUMAR GIRI @ BRIJESH KUMAR @ BRAJESH GIRI Son of Late Uday Giri Resident of Village - Giri Tola Parsa, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil, Police has wrongly mentioned their P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil (Manuapool), District- West Champaran at Bettiah. 2.

Kiran Devi Wife of Brajesh Kumar Giri @ Brijesh Kumar @ Brajesh Giri Resident of Village - Giri Tola Parsa, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil, Police has wrongly mentioned their P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil (Manuapool), District- West Champaran at Bettiah.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 57047 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran ====================================================== RAJ KUMARI DEVI @ POONAM DEVI Wife of Suresh Giri Resident of Village - Bairiya Tand, P.S.- Bairiya, District - West Champaran at Bettiah ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35309 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35309 of 2021(4) dt.17-02-2022 2/3 (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35876 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kr Singh No.3 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 57047 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kr Singh No.3 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in virtual court proceeding.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioners seek bail in connection with Bettiah Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 450, 506, 372, 373, 374, 120B, 376(D) (B) of the IPC, Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of the Immoral Traffic Act, Section 4, 17 of POCSO Act and Section 75, 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

According to prosecution case, the allegation against the accused persons is that sex racket was running by them. It is further alleged that informant and her mother were sexually assaulted by unknown persons and they were compelled to do so and were threatened to not open her mouth anywhere. It is also alleged that the informant and her mother were sold by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35309 of 2021(4) dt.17-02-2022 3/3 accused persons for the purpose of flesh trade. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have committed no offence and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this court as well as by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that petitioners are in custody since 20.12.2020 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail by referring para 30 of the case diary in which statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she supported the allegation as alleged in the FIR.

Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

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