Petitioner sought bail in a criminal case alleging enticement and rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO. Court noted conflicting allegations of voluntary marriage vs. forcible rape. Bench rejected bail application based on the seriousness of allegations involving a minor.
Petitioner not enlarged on bail; bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57615 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2019 Thana- HULASGANJ District- Jehanabad
======================================================
VIKKY DAS Son of Ram Vinay Das @ Vinay Das, Resident of Village - Kokarsa, P.S.- Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
4 11-12-2019 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.
Petitioner seeks bail in Hulasganj P.S. Case No.52 of 2019 registered under Sections 363,366A, 504 and 34 of the IPC and under section 12 of the POCSO Act.
The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner enticed the minor daughter of the informant and established physical relation with her.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim left her house out of her free will and solemnized marriage with the petitioner. At best, the marriage is voidable. No case under section 366A is made out. The case has been compromised but it appears that the date of birth of the victim is 13.02.2005 and on the date of occurrence i.e. 28.03.2019 the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57615 of 2019(4) dt.11-12-2019 2/2
victim was about 14 years old. The petitioner is alleged to have enticed her. The victim in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. very categorically disclosed that the petitioner took her to different places and forcibly committed rape with her. She further disclosed that the petitioner forcibly married with her at the place of his brother-in-law.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
Harish/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case alleging enticement, rape of a minor, and voidable marriage.
Whether the allegations under Section 366A IPC are made out when the marriage is claimed to be voidable.
Whether the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding forcible marriage compels the grant of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
VIKKY DAS
The State of Bihar
PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
