Pavan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60108 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2021 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== PAVAN KUMAR S/o RAJ KUMAR MAHTO R/o VILLAGEMANIKCHAK, P.S-RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dinesh Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 22-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case no. 269 of 2021 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Case and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

It is a case of kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 16 years while she had gone out for nature's call. Later on informant came to know during search that she was taken away by the FIR named accused persons including the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60108 of 2021(3) dt.22-08-2022 2/3 offence. No one has seen him along with the victim girl prior to the occurrence. Victim girl has also not alleged about misbehavior by the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Only with a view to put pressure upon the petitioner of marriage with the informant's daughter, this false case has been filed against him with concocted story by the informant.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has made direct allegation of kidnapping by tiding her mouth and eyes against the petitioner for the purpose of solemnization of marriage.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is direct allegation of kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant for marriage purpose against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60108 of 2021(3) dt.22-08-2022 3/3