Rajeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62607 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2024 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar S/O Sikandar Paswan @ Sikandar Prasad R/O VillageChiraiya, P.S- Chhauradano, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Saliman Khatoon W/O Mojahir Ansari R/V- Imalia, P.S- Mahuawa, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rahul Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 02-12-2024 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Chhauradano (Mahuawa) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 366A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of POCSO Act lodged on 09.05.2024 by the informant, Saliman Khatoon.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that besides her minor daughter, one other minor girl was taken away by Sabir Ali for the purpose of selling them which led to the FIR.
4. Subsequently, the victim girls were recovered as the story unfolded, the role of the petitioner cropped up inasmuch
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62607 of 2024(3) dt.02-12-2024 2/2 he make payment to Sabir Ali Rs. 10,000/- and took the victim girls to Kolkata with his wife and tried to sell them to the brothel but as both the minor girls were crying, the concerned person refused to take them, the victim girls returned which led to finally their arrest and present judicial custody.
5. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court his innocence submitting that he do not have criminal antecedent and actually, it was the role of Sabir Ali but his name has been dragged.
6. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, representing the State has taken this Court to the different paragraphs to show complicity of the petitioner alongwith his wife in taking them away to Kolkata for the purpose of selling them in a brothel.
7. Considering the allegation that has come against the petitioner, for the present, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T