Pintu Kumar Yadav @ Pintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25100 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2014 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== PINTU KUMAR YADAV @ PINTU KUMAR SON OF SHIVKUMAR YADAV Resident of village - Bhalua Karmouni, P.S. - Dobhi, Distt. - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mrigendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Nazir Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 24-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. case No. 156 of 2014 instituted for the offence under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the FIR, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused persons abducted her daughter, aged about 15 years on the false pretext of solemnization of marriage. Thereafter, this case has been lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the informant of this case has voluntarily filed a compromise

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25100 of 2023(3) dt.24-07-2023 2/2 petition in Court below which is evident from Annexuure-2. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 22.12.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR. The victim girl was recovered and her statement has been recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she specifically stated that the petitioner forcibly took her to Delhi and committed rape with her. The victim is minor, aged about 15 years. It is further submitted that witnesses of the case have also supported the prosecution.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Amandeep/- U T