Raj Kishor Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47747 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2020 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== RAJ KISHOR PASWAN S/o Sukhay Paswan R/o village- Kumiyahi, Ward No. 11, P.S.- Triveniganj, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual court proceedings. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks after complete start of the physical Court. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 69 of 2020 arising out of Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 373 of 2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 366(A), 370, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 8 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2020, is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Allegation is of kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant by the petitioner and named accused persons on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47747 of 2021(2) dt.18-01-2022 2/3 09.12.2020 either for marriage or for selling for flesh trade and the accused also threatened not to lodge a case or the informant would be implicated in false cases under the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of occurrence is 09.12.2020 and the date of FIR is 12.12.2020, as such, it is submitted that there is no explanation for the plausible delay in instituting the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that admittedly the victim is a minor, is a girl aged bout 13 years. Learned A.P.P. further submits that though no plausible explanation in the FIR has been given for instituting the same after a delay of three days but then it was the daughter of the informant who was kidnapped by the named accused persons and the informant was under threat not to disclose and also that when a minor daughter is kidnapped one can well imagine the state of mind of the parents of the victim. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as it has also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47747 of 2021(2) dt.18-01-2022 3/3 been recorded in the impugned order but then the victim admittedly is a minor aged 13 years and, as such, her consent or will does not matter. It is further submitted that it was the bounden duty of the accused person to ensure that the minor is not misguided and fall in bad company.

Considering the submission made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with POCSO Case No. 69 of 2020 arising out of Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 373 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Supaul.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T