Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2579/2024bail rejected

Ladli Khatoon @ Anjum Ara v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-31Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2579 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-598 Year-2021 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Ladli Khatoon @ Anjum Ara W/O - Md. Javed @ Md. Aabed R/O - Village - Boha Tola, P.s and District - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 31-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.598 of 2021, lodged on 29.07.2021, under Sections 363/365/366A/370/370A/372/373/376/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3/4/5/6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 75/79 of the J.J.Act.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against 19 named accused persons including the present petitioner against whom there is allegation that they used to persuade the minor girls against offence of Immoral Traffic Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor any recovery of girl

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2579 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 2/2 has been made from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2023 having no criminal antecedent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the co-accused have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court which is annexed as Annexure-3 series.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order it has been specifically stated by the victim that it is the petitioner who dragged her in flash trade for several years.

6. Considering the fact that the victim herself disclosed the name of the petitioner in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and this applications rejected. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that upon framing of the charges the petitioner shall move for bail. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T