Satya Narayan Mukhiya vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2022

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Satya Narayan Mukhiya vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2022

Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46609 of 2021
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-935 Year-2020 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 SATYA NARAYAN MUKHIYA S/o BAISHAKHI MUKHIYA R/o

                 VILLAGE-MANPUR GORIYARI, WARD NO 01, P.S-MADHEPURA

                 (BHARRAHI O.P), DISTRICT-MADHEPURA.


                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus

                 THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :

                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha

                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Rajeev Nayan App,231

                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   24-02-2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.) P.S. Case No. 935 of 2020 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 12 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 363, 506/34 of the IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act and later on, Section 366 A of the IPC Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46609 of 2021(3) dt.24-02-2022 2/3 was also added.

The gist of the prosecution case is that petitioner along with other accused persons kidnapped her and performed her marriage with one Laddu Sahni.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that due to village politics the name of the petitioner has been dragged in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the FIR that date of occurrence is 26.11.2020 and the present FIR has been instituted on 13.12.2020 without any explanation. Petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2021.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of material available on the record and the case diary submits that statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically sated that petitioner had kidnapped her and performed her marriage with co-accused Laddu Sahni.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46609 of 2021(3) dt.24-02-2022 3/3 However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) shahzad/-

U      T

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders