Dismissed¶¶23

Shankar Chaudhary v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Mar 2024CR. MISC./16074/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail rejected - Ss.366-A/34 IPC - kidnapping/inducement of minor for marriage - Neemchak Bathani PS Case No. 112 of 2023, Gaya - victim DOB 18.03.2006 - S.161/S.164 Cr.P.C. statements alleging forcible removal to Kolhapur, confinement and rape - informant mother's FIR against three accused - custody since 04.09.2023 - impugned order dated 17.10.2023 of Exclusive Special Judge POCSO-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Gaya - Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No.16074 of 2024, decided 19-03-2024 by Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances, including the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to grant bail. ¶¶23

Shankar Chaudhary Vs the State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16074 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2023 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

Shankar Chaudhary, aged about 25 years, Male Son of Ganga Chaudhary, Resident of Village - Naudiha, P.S. - Atri, District - Gaya, Bihar.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brijeshwar Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

¶8

ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 19-03-2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶11

APP for the State.

¶12

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Neemchak Bathani PS Case No. 112 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

As per the prosecution case, informant’s minor daughter was induced and kidnapped by the petitioner and two other co-accused persons for marriage.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity with the family of the victim. Petitioner is named in the FIR and the FIR has been lodged after 13 days of the alleged incident and there is no any plausible explanation in this regard. The

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16074 of 2024(2) dt.19-03-2024 2/3

¶16

allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition and is in custody since 04.09.2023.

¶17

Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.

¶18

From perusal of the FIR and the impugned order of

¶19

the learned Exclusive Special Judge POCSO-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Gaya dated 17.10.2023, it appears that the FIR has been registered on the basis of informant (mother of the victim) against three accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is that he induced and kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant with an intention of marry. From perusal of the records, it also appears that the informant in her re-statement has supported her case and the witnesses has also supported the case of the prosecution. In her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as well as in her Statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that Shankar Chaudhary (Petitioner) took her forcibly to kolhapur where he used to keep the victim after locking her in a room. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has also stated that Shankar Chaudhary used to commit rape with

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16074 of 2024(2) dt.19-03-2024 3/3

¶21

her. The date of birth of the victim is 18.03.2006, which shows that the victim is minor.

¶22