Patna High CourtCR. MISC./80101/2024bail rejected

Sanyuti Devi @ Sanyukta Devi @ Sanjuti Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-22Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80101 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2024 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== Sanyuti Devi @ Sanyukta Devi @ Sanjuti Devi W/O Ganouri Yadav Resident Of Village- Parghari, P.S- Rajoun, Distt.- Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Shyam Dev Das S/o Late Lado Das R/o Village-Parghari, P.S-Rajoun, District-Banka ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-01-2025 Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered under Sections 366(a), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

4. As per FIR, this petitioner enticed away minor grand daughter of informant with intention to marry her.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner denies the whole allegations as levelled against the petitioner and submits that the victim has given two different stories in her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80101 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025 2/2 statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. In Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated the name of the petitioner but in Section 164 Cr.P.C., she named one Anjuba Devi, while petitioner is not known as Anjuba Devi. Petitioner is an old lady aged about 70 years and she has got clean antecedent.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner and submits that it was this petitioner who enticed away minor grand daughter of informant with intention to marry her. The victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case. The age of the victim is 12 years. Hence, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

7. Having considered the accusation and gravity of offence as well as the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

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