Dismissed¶21

Sanuj Kumar @ Sanoj Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Apr 2024CR. MISC./4063/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail REJECTED - rape/POCSO matter (Sections 376, 376(3) IPC; Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act), Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. Case No. 831 of 2023, District Gaya; decision rested on victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement supporting prosecution; counsel alleged false implication, land-dispute enmity, no eye-witness, medical age 18-20 years; six-week surrender window with same-day regular bail consideration; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No.4063 of 2024, decided 16-04-2024 by Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.

What did the court decide?

No bail; however, the petitioner was permitted to surrender before the court below within six weeks and seek regular bail, which the court below was directed to decide the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. ¶21

Sanuj Kumar @ Sanoj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who apprehends arrest in Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. Case No. 831 of 2023 registered for offences under Sections 376, 376(3) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act, should be enlarged on (anticipatory) bail.

¶13

Court's answer

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement supporting the prosecution case, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected his prayer for bail.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Protective direction forming part of the disposal: if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within six weeks and seeks regular bail, the court below shall pass orders on the same day in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by this order.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J., oral order dated 16-04-2024) dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Sanuj Kumar @ Sanoj Kumar, who apprehended arrest in Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. Case No. 831 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 376, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging rape upon the informant's daughter. Counsel for the petitioner pleaded false implication due to village politics and previous enmity over a land dispute, absence of eye-witnesses, and a medical report placing the victim's age at about 18-20 years; the learned APP opposed bail relying on the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement supporting the prosecution case. Weighing these circumstances and the Section 164 statement, the court declined bail, but directed that if the petitioner surrendered within six weeks and sought regular bail, the court below would pass orders the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4063 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-831 Year-2023 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

SANUJ KUMAR @ SANOJ KUMAR SON OF LAKSHMAN DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PINDRA KHURD, POLICE STATION - DOBHI, DISTRICT - GAYA

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 16-04-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. Case No. 831 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape upon the informant’s daughter.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and he has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4063 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2024 2/3

¶17

allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. He was not caught on the spot. From bare persual of the FIR, it appears that the informant searched the victim near the house of Ram Pariccha Ram, but it is not clear as to why she searched the victim near his house. It is also not clear that as to why the informant did not catch Sanoj Kumar on the spot and why she did not inform the police at the time of occurrence. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that both the parties are covillagers and there is previous enmity between them arising out of land dispute. The name of the petitioner has been transpired in the present case merely due to village politics. It is further submitted that as per the medical report of the victim, her age was found about 18-20 years old. Therefore, no case under POCSO Act is made out against the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

¶18

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has supported the prosecution case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4063 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2024 3/3

¶21

well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶22

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

¶23

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

¶24

divyanshi/-

¶25

U T

Sanuj Kumar @ Sanoj Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanuj Kumar @ Sanoj Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Dipmala Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Lalan Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Mishra @ Pappu Mishra Vs the State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Bihar

Vinod Kumar Kumar Vs the State of Bihar