Dinesh Singh v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 363, 366A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ss. 8, 12
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 133, 161, 164, 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner and informant are having dispute relating to passage, as informant by encroaching Garmajarua aam land has created obstruction in…
Judgment
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ajay Singh son of Late Ramji singh Village- Gangpur Siswan Ps- Siswan Dist- Siwan ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : Mr.Indrajeet Bhushan : For the Petitioner/s For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ahmad Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 29-08-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is aged about 55 years and is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his minor daughter, aged about 17 years on 6-5-2024 at 3:00 pm, went to attend natures call, but did not return, on search he came to know that calls from different mobile numbers as detailed in the FIR came Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53856 of 2024(2) dt.29-08-2024 and his daughter talked to them, thus alleges that holder of mobile numbers enticed his daughter away for marriage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner and informant are having dispute relating to passage, as informant by encroaching Garmajarua aam land has created obstruction in the egress of the petitioner from his land, for which petitioner instituted a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C bearing M.N. Case No. 2383 of 2017 against the informant in the court of SDM, accordingly, order dated 22-5-2018 was passed for removing the enforcement, but the informant did not remove the enforcement, thus petitioner again filed an application before the SDM on 19- 1-2021.
It is next submitted that the victim was recovered on 12-5-2024, and her statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein she stated that she left her home as her mother had scolded for being photographed with Abhishek Kumar, but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has stated that the petitioner made a video when Abhishek was trying to outrage her modesty. It is also submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53856 of 2024(2) dt.29-08-2024 recorded under parental pressure.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Siswan P.S. Case No. 146 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. SUMIT/- U T (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.