Brahmdeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52586 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-583 Year-2018 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== BRAHMDEO YADAV S/o Late Bindi Yadav Resident of Village- Chhatahi Jiroga, P.S.- Andhra Math, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 06-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 363, 374 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

As per the prosecution case, it is stated by the informant that accused Balram Yadav and the petitioner herein were involved in taking away minor children for the purpose of sale. It is stated that six named children including two of them who happen to be the nephew of the informant telephoned the informant to inform that the above two accused including the petitioner herein had sold them and they were being forced to work as labourers. On enquiry, it transpired that the children were being made to work in Yamuna Nagar (Haryana Sugri

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52586 of 2021(3) dt.06-04-2022 2/2 Plyboard).

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The falsity of the allegations would be evident from perusal of the material that has transpired in course of investigation wherein the children state that they were taken away while they had gone to withdraw money from the Bank. They being minors, the very genesis of the story is false and concocted. No such occurrence has taken place. The petitioner is in custody since 11.6.2021 and has no criminal antecedent. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case together with the contents of the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the recovered children, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected for the present.

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U