Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43657 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2022 Thana- JADIA District- Supaul ====================================================== RANJEET KUMAR @ RANJEET KUMAR YADAV SON OF AMOD YADAV VILLAGE- GURIYA, P.S.- JADIYA, DISTT.- SUPAUL ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Geeta Devi W/o Nepali Pandit R/o Village-Guriya, Ward No.4, P.S.-Jadiya, District-Supaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard the parties.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 94 of 2022 arising out of Jadiya P.S. Case No.319 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 147, 149, 323, 341, 376, 313, 307, 120(B), 504, 506 of IPC and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act.

3.

Allegedly, the petitioner established physical relation with the minor daughter of the informant on the pretext of marrying her.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43657 of 2024(6) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 leveled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that in the medical examination, the medical board has not found any sign of rape on the victim either recent or old. It is further submitted that charge has been framed on 30.10.2024. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 12.01.2024.

5.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of regular bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for regular bail after examination of the victim 9.

Both the parties are directed to co-operate in the trial. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T