Dismissed

Surendra Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 May 2019CR. MISC./7726/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail regarding offences under Sections 363, 365, 376(D) of IPC and POCSO Act, the court held that due to the seriousness of allegations including kidnapping and rape, anticipatory bail is not entitled, directing the petitioner to approach the lower court for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to seek regular bail from the lower court.

Surendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7726 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-850 Year-2017 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

SURENDRA YADAV son of Dinesh Yadav Resdent of Village-Bisanpur, Jichho, P.S. Lodipur, District Bhagalpur

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

5 09-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kotwali (Jogsar) P.S.Case No.850 of 2017 dated 20.11.2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

¶13

Allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is that the informant was studying at Bhagalpur , she was kidnapped by one co-accused and rape was committed upon her and further allegation is that she was taken for examination by the vehicle and the petitioner is the driver of the vehicle.

¶14

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no knowledge about the same and the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7726 of 2019(5) dt.09-05-2019 2/2

¶16

story also falsifies from the materials collected during the investigation.

¶17

Heard learned A.P.P. , who has opposed the prayer for bail..

¶18

Having heard both sides and from the allegation it appears that the allegation is serious and the petitioner is also said to be driver of the vehicle, as such I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner to pray for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below on its own merit.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed.

¶20

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)

¶21

chn/-

¶22

U T

Surendra Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Yadav Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Binay Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kushwaha @ Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs The State of Bihar

Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Ajimullah Kha @ Ajimullah Khan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ranjeet Singh and Anr. Vs The State of Bihar