← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2684/2021rejected

Siddhi Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

2021-12-23Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2684 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-532 Year-2020 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

SIDDHI SINHA D/O SRI KANHAIYA KUMAR RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARIBATIKA CHOWK, P.S.-BETTIAH MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN.

2.

ARYAN SINHA SRI KANHAIYA KUMAR RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARIBATIKA CHOWK 3.

SONI SINHA SRI KANHAIYA KUMAR RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARIBATIKA CHOWK ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sachidanand Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 23-12-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Bettiah Muffasil (Banuchhapar) P.S. Case No. 532 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Codeand sections 12, 13(C) and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case merely on basis of suspicion. As a matter of fact, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2684 of 2021(4) dt.23-12-2021 2/2 deceased committed suicide. Perusal of the first information report reveals that it may be a case of honour killing. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners are named accused in the first information report and there are serious allegations against him. Moreover, during investigation materials have come showing complicity of these petitioners in the alleged occurrence. The petitioners, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Having considering the allegations levelled, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials available on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T