Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63515/2019dismissed

Shaildhar Kumar @ Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-22Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63515 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2019 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran ====================================================== SHAILDHAR KUMAR @ RAVI KUMAR Son of Jai Ram Singh Resident of Village and Post Ami P.S. Dhighwara, District- Saran (Chhapra). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 22-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341,323, 376,506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act registered in connection with Dighwara P.S. Case No. 158/2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the abduction and rape of the informant. It is submitted that the thrust of accusation is against co-accused Amitaj Kumar. The petitioner along with coaccused Bindeshwari Mahto are said to have been present in the vehicle in which she was taken away by co-accused Amitaj Kumar. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a resident of different village and there is land dispute between the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63515 of 2019(2) dt.22-10-2019 2/2 families. There is delay in institution of the FIR on 14.06.2019 for the alleged occurrence of 05.06.2019 even though the informant returned on 12.06.2019 to her parent's house. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the petition inviting reference to the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-2), reiterating the allegations. The victim girl claims to be 14 years of age and has been assessed as such.

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

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T