Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2564/2023rejected

Gopal Sah @ Gopal Sah (Goand) v. The State Of Bihar

2023-04-21Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2564 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA PS District- East Champaran ====================================================== GOPAL SAH @ GOPAL SAH (GOAND) S/o Late Jokhu Sah R/o VillageLodihar, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhura Nand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 376(A), 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, the accused petitioner has been alleged to have committed rape with the victim daughter of the informant, aged about 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dirty village politics. A statement has been made in para-3 of the petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2564 of 2023(3) dt.21-04-2023 2/2 petitioner is old age person and languishing in judicial custody since 4.7.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that from perusal of case diary, it appears that the victim daughter is minor, aged about 5 years and there direct allegation against the petitioner has been made of committing rape with the daughter of the informant. During investigation, witness also supported the prosecution versions.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Amandeep/- U T