Krishna Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27611 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2019 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== KRISHNA RAI S/o Suresh Rai Resident of Village-Pachtaki Yadu, Police Station-Bairgania, District-Sitamarhi ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Addl Public Prosecutor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner seeks bail in Trial No.82/2019 (Bairgania Police Station Case No. 152/2019) registered for the offence punishable under sections 363,366A,372/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the POCSO Act. Informant alleges that on call his fourteen and a half years old daughter had gone to the house of the petitioner for taking food at 8 PM and when she did not return till 9 PM, he inquired about her on which petitioner's daughter-in-law told him that his daughter has already returned to her house. During search, the informant learnt that his daughter has been abducted on Bolero by the petitioner and his family members with an intention to marry or to force her to prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute.

Report of the Medical Board dated 30.7.2019 (Annexure 2) has determined her age to be 18 to 19 years. Several similarly situated co-accused have already been allowed pre-arrest bail by different benches of this Court vide orders contained in Annexure 3 series.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27611 of 2020(2) dt.19-10-2020 2/2 criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 29.7.2019. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and states that the petitioner at the time of abduction had a knife in his hand and on the point of the knife he and other accused persons abducted the victim which fact has also been supported by the victim in her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Pointing to the impugned order, he submits that the charge has been framed against the petitioner and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.

In view of the above, prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused. Let the trial be expedited.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T