Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53205/2024dismissed

Jyoti Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-31Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53205 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2023 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== JYOTI DEVI W/O LATE RAJ KUMAR JHA R/O VILLAGE- THAKUR TOLA WARD NO. 03, P.S- LAURIYA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR 2.

KESHWAR BIN S/O RADHA BIN R/O VILLAGE- BIN TOLI, P.SDHANAH, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-08-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail as earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 6.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 66796 of 2023 which reads as under:- Heard Sri Braj Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagdhar Prasad, learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Dhanaha P.S. Case No. 143 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. Allegation against the accused persons is of abducting the victim girl.

4. From the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it appears

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53205 of 2024(2) dt.31-08-2024 2/2 that the petitioner is running a brothel and she had kept the girl in her brothel.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. If there is no substantial progress in the trial, the petitioner may move before this Court for bail.

3. Upon perusal of the earlier order and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds no new ground for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

5. The Superintendent of Police, West Champaran is directed to produce the witnesses on the dates fixed in the trial as it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses are not appearing in the trial.

6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran through FAX for its compliance.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U