Abid Ansari @ Md. Abid Ansari @ Aabid Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3676 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== ABID ANSARI @ MD. ABID ANSARI @ AABID ANSARI Son of Nazir Hussain Ansari, Resident of Village-Barheta Ganga Ram, P.S.-Hathauri, District-Muzaffarpur. .. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar, Adv.

For the Informant : Mr. Shiv Pujan Sahay, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 05-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. through Video Conferencing.

Petitioner seeks bail in Mahila P.S. Case No.46 of 2019 registered under Sections 376(D), 323 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The informant alleged that while she was coming towards her house after taking milk from the house of Jugal Sah, Prashant Gupta took her inside the bamboo bush where Nishant Gupta, Pintu Gupta and Abid Ansari (petitioner) and Prashant Gupta committed rape with her one by one.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a cousin of the victim. There is a land dispute between the father of the victim and the father of the petitioner. A panchayati was also held. It is further submitted that Prashant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3676 of 2020(3) dt.05-06-2020 2/2 Gupta had affairs with the victim and when the matter was protested, the victim lodged the case making false and frivolous allegation. The petitioner is in jail since 31.07.2019. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prayer for bail of one of the accused has already been rejected by this court.

From perusal of the records, it appears that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner and three other persons committed rape with her one by one in bamboo bush. The victim appears to be a minor girl aged about 16-17 years.

Having considered the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to hold the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt of this court. If the trial is not concluded within nine months, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail thereafter.

Harish/- (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) U