Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging kidnapping of a minor under IPC 366(A) and POCSO. Court held it was not a fit case despite lack of corroboration and granted prayer to the State. Bail rejected.
Prayer for anticipatory bail 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.65571 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2021 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Chuman Kumar @ Sajan Kumar, S/O Ramsharan Mukhiya, R/O VillageChandrayanvan Tola Ninvaliya, P.S- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran, Bettiah, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
2 03-04-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his
arrest in connection with Majauliya P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 12 of the POCSO Act.
As per prosecution case, allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other two co-accused persons kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant with wrong intention.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case as the victim eloped with co-accused Bikau Kumar. There is general allegation of kidnapping against three accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65571 of 2022(2) dt.03-04-2023 2/2
persons including this petitioner but nothing specific has been attributed against the petitioner. The victim girl has been recovered but she did not support the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has no concern with co-accused Bikau Kumar.
Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that though the petitioner claims that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded and she has not supported the prosecution case, but the petitioner has not brought on record the copy of the said statement. Moreover, the allegations are quite serious against the petitioner and offence under Section 366(A) of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act have been mentioned in the FIR for involvement of the petitioner along with other co-accused persons.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, I do not think it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Hence the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
balmukund/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging kidnapping and sexual offences against a child?
Whether the failure of the victim to support the prosecution case entitles the petitioner to anticipatory bail?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chuman Kumar @ Sajan Kumar
The State of Bihar
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
