Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39356 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2024 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Deepak Kumar Son of Rajbanshi Mukhiya, R/o Village- Bhawanipur Bin Toli Bandh, PS- Sangrampur, Dist- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Ramawati Devi Wife Of Birbal Mukhiya, R/o Village- Bhawanipur Bin Toli Bandh, Ps- Sangrampur, Dist- East Champaran, ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2024 Heard Mr. Samir Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Yogendra Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 11.01.2024, in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 09 of 2024, FIR dated 10.01.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3) and 493 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 3.

According to the prosecution case, when the informant's minor daughter didn't return home on time, the informant went looking for her and saw her with the petitioner and inquired her about the same to which she replied that under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39356 of 2024(4) dt.18-09-2024 2/3 the pretext of marriage, the petitioner has established physical relationship with her and this is going on for around one year and now the petitioner is refusing to marry her. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. In fact, the petitioner was in love with the victim girl and with the consent of the victim, the petitioner was in relationship with the victim. 5.

The learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has committed rape upon the victim. Apart from that, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has firmly stated that the petitioner committed rape upon her and the medical report also suggests that the allegation as levelled in the FIR is true and the victim was indeed minor at the date of alleged occurrence.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 09 of 2024, pending in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39356 of 2024(4) dt.18-09-2024 3/3 Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act.

7.

Prayer is refused.

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