Fulen Yadav @ Fulena Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32849 of 2015 (3) dt.09-11-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32849 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -72 Year- 2015 Thana -BARAUNI District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Fulen Yadav @ Fulena Yadav Son of late Harkeet yadav Resident of Village -Simaria Chanan, P.s Barauni, district Begusarai.. .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Randhir Kumar No-1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradip Narayan Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barauni P.S. Case No. 72 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of POCSO Act.

Allegedly, Shilpi Kumari aged 8 years, the daughter of the informant was missing from her house and in course of search the informant came to know from Pramod Rai that Shilpi Kumari was seen along with the petitioner going towards village Simaria Chanan and the petitioner was not present in his house and accordingly, the written report was submitted. During course of investigation Shilpi Kumari was recovered with the petitioner by the Police and she in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated as to how she was taken by the petitioner on his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32849 of 2015 (3) dt.09-11-2015 bicycle and how he provided clothes, slipper, hair clip etc. Submission is of false implication and that the victim was weeping and the petitioner was there and he has been arrested resulting he is suffering in custody since 02.03.2015 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that luckily the petitioner was caught and the victim was recovered. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is sufficient to show as to how she was kidnapped by the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within six months, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T