Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5772/2022bail rejected

Ranjeet Gosai v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-23Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5772 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2020 Thana- KHIRHAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== RANJEET GOSAI SON OF SUKHASAGAR GOSAI R/O VILLAGEPAHRA, P.S.- KHIRHAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Nazir Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 23-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in a case registered under sections 363, 366A, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act were added subsequently.

The allegation against the petitioner is of having abused, threatened and of having taken away the 14 year old minor daughter of the informant along with him. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier application for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.7.2021 (Annexure-1) passed in Cr. Misc. no.12388 of 2021. Inspite of the petitioner being in custody since 18.7.2020, there is no progress whatsoever in the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5772 of 2022(4) dt.23-03-2022 2/2 trial court and not a single witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial and abide by all the conditions which may be laid by this Court for his release on bail.

A report was called for from the learned trial court and as per the report received, charges have been framed in the case on 1.4.2021 and none of the nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

However, taking into consideration the contents of the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. together with the fact that the daughter of the informant is aged 14 years, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present and the application is rejected.

In view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 18.7.2020, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail in case there is no progress in the trial in six months from the date of receipt/communication of this order in the learned trial court.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T