Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35419/2023rejected

Jugnu @ Jugnu Miyan v. The State Of Bihar

2023-09-19Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35419 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2008 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== JUGNU @ JUGNU MIYAN Son of Late Teni Miyan R/o village - Boha Tola @ Islampur, P.S.- Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 19-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 372, 373 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3, 5, 6, 9 of Pita Act. 3 As per FIR, it is a case of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act committed by the petitioner along with other accused person. According to the statement of the victim annexed with the case diary shows that Manjoor Khalifa used to coerce the informant/victim and wanted to force to get the Prostitution business and when she did not agree, this Manjoor Khalifa sold and handed over to one Jumnu.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35419 of 2023(4) dt.19-09-2023 2/2 no allegation against the petitioner that he taken away to the victim and no direct allegation of Immoral Trafficking Act is there. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition and he is in custody since 15.03.2023.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that during investigation, the victims supported the prosecution case and stated that the petitioner is the purchaser who purchased the informant from Manjoor Khalifa of Rs. 20,000/- and during investigation witnesses supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

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