Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Chaudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83750 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2023 Thana- SHEIKHOPUR SARAI DistrictSheikhpura ====================================================== Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Chaudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Chaudhary jSon of Naresh Choudhary @ Naresh Chaudhary Resident of VillageMiyanbigha at Bara Bigha, P.S. -Sheikhopursarai, District- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rakesh Chaudhary Son of Genauri Chaudhary Resident of VillageMiyanbigha, P.S. -Sheikhopursarai, District- Sheikhpura ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Roop Kishan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-01-2025 Heard Mr. Roop Kishan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 16.10.2024, in connection with Sheikhopursarai P.S. Case No. 233 of 2023, FIR dated 12.12.2023 registered for the offence under Sections 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

3. According to prosecution case, petitioner along with other co-accused person has enticed the daughter of the informant and disappeared her.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83750 of 2024(3) dt.10-01-2025 2/2 alleged is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. In fact the petitioner was in love with the victim girl.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that on the date of occurrence, victim was minor and apart from that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she was living with the petitioner at Gujarat as husband and wife.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence as well as the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Sheikhopursarai P.S. Case No. 233 of 2023 pending in the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Vith, Shikhpura.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Neha/- U T