Manjoor Alam @ Raju @ Raju Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.63634 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -409 Year- 2016 Thana -PURNEA SADAR District- PURNIA ======================================================
1. Manjoor Alam @ Raju @ Raju Kumar Sah, Son of Late Mallu Miyan @ Moulu Sah, R/o Zero Mile, Raja Nagar, Hansdah, P.S.- Sadar, DistrictPurna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Kumar Singh 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2018 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sadar P.S. case No. 409 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 372, 373, 363,376 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3, 4, 5, 6,7 of Immoral Traffic Act and Section 3,4,6 of POCSO Act. The informant alleged that two sisters of her daughter were living with her but one fine very morning both the girls fled away. The informant alleged that Muskan, one of the daughters of her sister, called her on mobile disclosing that she was kept confined by Shabnam, wife of Manjoor Alam, the petitioner, and they forced her to indulge in flesh trade. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63634 of 2017 (2) dt.16-01-2018 2/2 the victim made her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. The victim disclosed that petitioner happens to be husband of Shabnam. The petitioner never forced the girl to indulge in flesh trade. The petitioner has already divorced his wife, Shabnam, and he is living separately.
It appears from perusal of the FIR that the victim made specific allegation against Shabnam that she forced her to indulge in flesh trade and she disclosed that petitioner is husband of Shabnam and he was living with his wife.
Considering 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