Sajid Ahmad @ Sajid Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15457 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur ====================================================== SAJID AHMAD @ SAJID ALAM S/O MARUF AHMAD @ MD. MAROOF ALAM R/O VILLAGE, PS- AJIMABAD, DISTRICT BHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-07-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bhojpur Mahila P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 40 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376(d)/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution case, this petitioner along with co-accused Minhaz Ahmad committed rape upon the minor daughter of informant.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15457 of 2021(2) dt.02-07-2021 2/2 dispute between the parties over sewerage, petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Medical report does not support the prosecution case as no sign of sexual intercourse was found and the age of victim girl has been found between 16 to 17 years. Petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2020 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner and other that they committed gang rape and the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the Date of Birth has been stated as 24.05.2005 which clearly goes to show on the date of occurrence, the victim girl was minor. Considering the facts aforesaid and the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T