Neetu Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54325 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2022 Thana- BAUNSI District- Banka ====================================================== NEETU DEVI WIFE OF DEVENDRA MANJHI R/O VILLAGEJHAPANIYA, P.S.- BOUNSI, DISTRICT- BANKA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brij Nandad Prasad,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 30.07.2022 in connection with Bounsi P.S.Case No.171 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 13.07.2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.07.2021, accused persons including the petitioner are alleged to have kidnapped the minor daughter (the victim) of the informant aged about 14 years for the purpose of marriage.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54325 of 2022(4) dt.20-04-2023 2/2 that the petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation and no cogent material has come against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.

Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of the material available on the record and the case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim was recovered while she was accompanying with the petitioner and the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has stated the complicity of the petitioner in the present case. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Bounsi P.S.Case No.171 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-6-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Banka.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T