Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24225/2015rejected

Dilip Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-07Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24225 of 2015 (3) dt.07-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24225 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -13 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA PS DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Dilip Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary Son of Dharam Choudhary Resident of village- Ojha Tola, P.S.- Chakiya, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Tondon For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. M.K. Gautam (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 07-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 370 A (I), 373, 506, 504, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 POCSO Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner and his wife brought the minor informant for working in Orchestra party and kept her at Chakiya for 15 days where the petitioner committed rape with her several times and on refusal she was threatened to kill and further the petitioner was planning to sell her but she fled away and FIR was lodged.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24225 of 2015 (3) dt.07-10-2015 Submission is of false implication and that no medical examination has been done as to whether rape was committed or not. The petitioner is suffering in custody since 11.03.2015 without any legal and cogent evidence. No witness has seen the petitioner committing rape and as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that the informant and her friend Santoshi Das in their statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have supported the allegation of rape.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as per amended proviso of Section 309 Cr.P.C. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T