Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36127/2015rejected

Bimal Rao v. The State Of Bihar

2015-11-24Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36127 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2012 Thana -SIKARPUR DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Bimal Rao Son of Mahatam Rao Resident of village - D.K. Shikarpur, Police Station - Shikarpur, District - West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.-7 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Shikarpur P.S.Case No. 138 of 2012 ( Trial No.1756 of 2015) for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 377, 504,506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Sri Wasim Akram Khan, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Clas, Bettiah, West Champaran.

Allegedly, the petitioner has committed unnatural offence with Junaid Alam, aged 7 years, the son of the informant and thereafter he was treated by Dr. Mirtunjay Pandey at village. Submission is of false implication and that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36127 of 2015 (3) dt.24-11-2015 2/2 petitioner is suffering in custody since 08.02.2013 having no criminal antecedent , the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that in the expert opinion, the doctor has found that some hard substance has been penetrated in anus forcefully.

In the facts and circumstances, as stated above, and noticing the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, considering the detention of the petitioner, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within a period of six months taking the same on priority basis.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) singh/- U