Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54755/2023dismissed

Md. Sarfaraj Ansari@Raju v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-25Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54755 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2022 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== Md. Sarfaraj Ansari@Raju S/O - Md. Shahid Ansari @ Shahid Ahmad R/O - Barah Patthar, Ward No. - 36, P.S. - Nagar Thana, Dehri ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ful Man Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-08-2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No.119 of 2022 instituted under Section 363, 366(A) of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act lodged on 11.07.2022 by the informant Pawan Sharma. As per the prosecution story, the allegation is that the informant is a labour whose wife died during COVID-19 period. The victim girl was working with one Rahila Kunwar who sold his daughter and upon inquiry, also assaulted him. When he tried to search, he could not find her and later came to know that Rahila Kuwar's son Prem Tiwary and Arjun Tiwary raped his daughter. The girl was subsequently recovered and she made statement firstly under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and later under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she alleged that the petitioner along with his wife purchased her and pressurize her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54755 of 2023(2) dt.25-08-2023 2/2 to do bad work. The age has been found to be 13 years. Considering the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner that he purchased the minor girl, who was without her mother, father being a labour, sexually exploited her, as she has narrated her ordeal, for the present this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan U T