Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1049/2024dismissed

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Patel v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-07Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1049 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2023 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Patel Son of Ramdeo Singh R/o vill - Santpur, P.S. - Ghorasahan, Dist. - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 125 of 2023 dated 10.03.2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 366(A), 34 of the IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Motihari, East Champaran.

3. As per the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he in conviance with other co-accused persons have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous grudge. The allegations

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1049 of 2024(2) dt.07-02-2024 2/2 levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail petition submitted that the victim in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case, allegations levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, the statement of victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C in which she has named the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) annpurna/- U T