Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37152 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2018 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai ====================================================== SANTOSH KUMAR Son of Ram Pukar Tanti Resident of Village- Pannapur, P.S.- Matihani, District- Begusarai- 851134 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Matihani P.S. case No. 176 of 2018 registered under Section 376(g), 120(B), 366A of the IPC and u/s 4/8 of POCSO Act.

The informant, father of the victim, disclosed that his daughter had gone to house of her maternal uncle on 07.12.2018 but she did not return. During the course of search his daughter returned on 08.12.2018 and disclosed that petitioner along with two other accused persons, namely, Sumit Kumar and Vivek Kumar took her to the house of Awdhesh Rai situated in village Rachiyahi Purana Tola and they all committed rape with the victim. Awadhesh Rai and his wife threatened the victim. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim made her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37152 of 2019(2) dt.18-06-2019 2/2 and at one place in her statement she disclosed that Vivek Kumar and Sumit Kumar committed rape with her but at another place she disclosed that petitioner and Sumit Kumar committed rape with her. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet u/s 354(B) of the IPC but it appears that victim made her statement disclosing the name of petitioner that petitioner and others after kidnapping the victim committed rape with her. The other accused persons have been granted regular bail.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T