Mohan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6636 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2022 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== MOHAN KUMAR Son of Ram Sobhit Ray Resident of Village- Shitalpatti, P.S.- Sahiyara, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Usha Kumari 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 154 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 376, 376(A)(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 6, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(i)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioner along with the another co-accused are alleged to have committed rape upon the minor daughter of the informant after making her unconscious and made a video of the incident.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation, as alleged in the F.I.R., is false and fabricated and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6636 of 2023(3) dt.22-06-2023 2/2 the petitioner has not committed any offence. He further submits that there is land dispute between the parties and on account of the same, this false case has been lodged against the petitoner. No such occurrence ever took place. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 04.11.2022.

Learned A.P.P. for the State on the other hand on the basis of material available on record and the case diary opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation of commission of rape upon the minor daughter of the informant and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the allegation leveled against the petitioner stating that the petitioner has committed rape upon her. He further submits that the medical report also get supports from the prosecution version.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence and also the age of the victim, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T