Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41294/2016dismissed

Priyanka Devi @ Jyoti @ Lalo v. The State Of Bihar

2016-10-22Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41294 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -185 Year- 2016 Thana -JAKKANPUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Priyanka Devi @ Jyoti @ Lalo, wife of Arbind Sao, resident of village Murauro, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda and according to FIR resident of Village Jaddichak, P.S. Masaudhi, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. J.K. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 22-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 04.08.2016 in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 185 of 2016 and Special POCSO Case No. 105 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 342, 313 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Act and under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the thrust of accusation is against co-accused Pappu Singh. The offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and so also the offences alleged under Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act are not made out against the petitioner.

4. A perusal of the fardbeyan of the informant however, discloses specific accusation against the petitioner with regard to the role played by her in the entire offence. There are clear averments of various acts of the petitioner which prima facie

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41294 of 2016 (3) dt.22-10-2016 2/2 attract the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which are all serious in nature.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. The bail petition stands dismissed.

Chandran/BT (Vikash Jain, J) U T