Shaquib Neyaz v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52944 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2021 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SHAQUIB NEYAZ, Son of Md. Shakil @ Shakil Ahmad Resident of Mohalla- Brahmpura near Noori Maszid, P.S.- Brahmpura, DistrictMuzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2022 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State, through Video Conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 98 of 2021, instituted for the offences under Sections 366(A)/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4, 8, 12 of POCSO Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2021, he is a person with clean antecedent, charge-sheet has been submitted and the informant alleges that his minor daughter was kidnapped by the petitioner who is a science teacher of the victim. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and victim

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52944 of 2021(2) dt.10-02-2022 2/2 herself had accompanied him to Nepal and further after returning from Nepal, the victim's statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has also disclosed that she was taken to Nepal by the petitioner and thereafter she was brought to Sitamarhi where she was kept in confinement for eight days but does not allege that the petitioner committed any bad acts. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner was the teacher of the victim, the victim is a minor, the responsibility of the petitioner towards his student was much more than the parents and the fact that the petitioner without informing parents of the victim took the victim to Nepal and kept her confined in Sitamarhi for eight days, as disclosed by the victim in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in itself demonstrate the conduct of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present, therefore, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) sanjeev/- U T