Patna High CourtCR. MISC./68867/2019rejected

Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-04Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68867 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-445 Year-2019 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== PAPPU YADAV S/o Akalu Yadav R/o village- Ahiraura, P.S.- Mohania, District- kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-03-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhabua P.S. Case No. 445 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4/5 (C) of the POCSO Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his enemies. The daughter of the informant was missing from 24.07.2019 but the present case was lodged on 28.07.2019. The present case has been lodged merely to put pressure upon the petitioner to solemnize marriage with the elder daughter of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68867 of 2019(4) dt.04-03-2020 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation against him of kidnapping the daughter of the informant. Moreover, the victim girl in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T