Satish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65359 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2022 Thana- BARURAJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SATISH KUMAR S/o- RAJKISHOR TIWARI Village- Chainpur Ps- Baruraj Dist- Muzaffarpur, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prem Kumar Paswan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 03-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No. 86 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 369, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added sections 376, 328 & 341 of the IPC and sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner along with co-accused person is said to have abducted the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of wrongdoings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. The FIR was lodged after delay of 2 days from the date of occurrence. It is also submitted that the medical report of the victim does not corroborate the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65359 of 2023(3) dt.03-01-2024 2/2 prosecution case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 28.5.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the victim girl was recovered who supports the prosecution case in her statement recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which, she stated that the petitioner along with co-accused took her to Motihari where they mixed intoxicant in her food due to which he became senseless. The victim made strong suspicion that the accused persons including the petitioner committed wrong with her. It is also submitted that the victim is minor who stated her age about thirteen years.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Amandeep/- U T