Munna @ Saurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.980 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== Munna @ Saurav Kumar S/o Sri Paras Nath Chaudhary R/v- Maurya Path, Hopariya Apartment, Khajpura, P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Informant : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-10-2022 Heard both parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No. 126 of 2021 corresponding to Special Case No. 142 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code, section 4 of the POCSO Act and sections 76, 76(A) of the Information Technology Act.

As per the prosecution case, this petitioner sexually exploited the informant since 14 years and also threatened her not to disclose this fact to anyone otherwise he will make viral her video.

It is submitted that no offence under POCSO Act is made out against this petitioner. The age of victim girl is more

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.980 of 2022(4) dt.17-10-2022 2/2 than 18 years and she herself disclosed her age as 25 years in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that in para 173 and 178 of the case diary it has come that the informant gave information petition that under the pressure she has lodged this false case and prays for disposal of the case. The informant has denied the prosecution case in her affidavit filed before the court below.

Counsel for State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim girl has supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Considering the facts aforesaid and the statement of victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C in which she has duly supported the prosecution case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T