Dismissed

Amit Sah @ Sukru v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC11 Jul 2017CR. MISC./24980/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a bail application filed by an accused in a case involving offences under IPC, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and POCSO. The court refused bail at the current stage due to the involvement of a minor victim and remanded the matter for consideration after framing of charges.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail dismissed. Petitioner advised to renew prayer after framing of charges before the court below.

Amit Sah @ Sukru Vs The State Of Bihar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24980 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -204 Year- 2016 Thana -BALIA District- BEGUSARAI

¶3

====================================================== Amit Sah @ Sukru, son of Late Naresh Sah, resident of village - Chhoti Balia Bazar, Police Station - Balia, District - Begusarai.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murlidhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶5

3 11-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

This is an application for bail in connection with Balia P.S.Case No. 204 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 363, 366A, 398, 370A, 370D, 372, 373, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 3, 4 & 6 of Immoral Traffic Act and 4 & 8 of POCSO Act.

¶7

Allegation against the petitioner is that he forcibly took the victim, who is a minor girl, and handed over her to other co-accused, i.e, woman broker.

¶8

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is seven days delay in lodging FIR and there is land dispute between the parties and petitioner is cousin brother of the victim girl and, as such, prosecution story does not appears to be believable. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention towards

¶9

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24980 of 2017 (3) dt.11-07-2017

¶10

2/2

¶11

Annexure-3 which is an information given by RTI stating that no such recovery has been made and petitioner is in custody for three months.

¶12

Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant also. They have opposed the prayer for bail stating that in a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim girl has deposed against the petitioner.

¶13

Having heard both sides and considering the fact that victim girl was minor, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶14

However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge in this case before the court below, who will consider the materials available against the petitioner at that time and after considering the same he will pass an appropriate order.

¶15

With the above observation, this application is

¶16

dismissed.

¶17

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)

¶18

spal/-

¶19

Amit Sah @ Sukru v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Sah @ Sukru v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjeet Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Sandeep Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Munna @ Manoj Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Niranjan Kumar Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar

Yogendra Chaudhary @ Gonga Vs The State Of Bihar

Dhuri Koiri Vs The State Of Bihar