Patna High Court - Orders
Munna Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 23 March, 2018
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1526 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2014 Thana- Ander District- Siwan
======================================================
Munna Singh son of Ramdhari Singh Resident of Village - Kodiya, Police
Station - Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastriji
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5. 23-03-2018Heard Sri Bijay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra singh Shastriji, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Andar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2014 registered for offence under Sections 365, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 14-08-2014, Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (i.e. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) were added, has prayed for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender.
In this case, earlier case diary was called for, which has been received and kept on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., but subsequently in calculated manner, petitioner has been made accused on the strength of statement of the victim, which was recorded under Section 164 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1526 of 2018(5) dt.23-03-2018 2/2 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that save and except statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., other witnesses have not specifically corroborated the allegation.
Sri Shastri, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, by way of referring to certain paragraphs of the case diary, submits that there is specific case against the petitioner. It was not only case of kidnapping, but during captive period, the victim was rapped also and this allegation was corroborated by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that the daughter of the informant was missing since 07-04-2014 and thereafter, on 11-04-2014, an F.I.R. was lodged, in which, it is true that petitioner was not arrayed as accused, but during investigation, his involvement was transpired and finally, on 02-06-2014, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which, specific allegation has been made against the petitioner.
In view of nature of allegation, particularly seriousness of the case, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
anay
U T