Randhir Kumar Paswan @ Randhir Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42655 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2019 Thana- SINGHIYA District- Samastipur ====================================================== RANDHIR KUMAR PASWAN @ RANDHIR PASWAN Son of Laxman Paswan @ Lachhaman Paswan @ lakshaman Paswan Resident of Village Baluaha, Jahingirpur Lagma, P.S. Singhia, District Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarbottam Kumar Sarkar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Singhia P.S. Case No. 149 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376/313/315/34/120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

Prosecutrix is a minor girl. She lodged FIR stating therein that the petitioner, at the pretext of marriage sexually exploited her for one year and when she became pregnant the accused persons named in the FIR forcibly got her pregnancy terminated by Dr. Dipak Sharma. There is also allegation against the petitioner and other

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42655 of 2021(2) dt.04-07-2022 2/2 accused persons that they assaulted the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and prosecutrix are agnates. The age of prosecutrix is seventeen and half years and there is also land dispute between the family of prosecutrix and father of the present petitioner. Further submission is that both the parties have compromised the case. The prosecutrix is admittedly a minor girl. Section 376 of the IPC as well as POCSO Act has also mentioned in the FIR. As per allegation, the petitioner not only sexually exploited the prosecutrix but also get her pregnancy aborted. As such, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T