Rajesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6465 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rajesh Paswan, Son of Vishwanath Paswan, R/O Village- Ghoswar (Fatehpur Akara), P.S.- Sadar Hajipur, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Priyesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 376 (ii)(I), 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner enticed away the minor informant and raped her. He also prepared a video of his wrongful act and threatening the informant that he would put that video online continued raping the informant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6465 of 2022(2) dt.20-07-2022 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There was love affair with the informant. The trial is proceeding and victim as prosecution witness did not support the case and other witnesses have also not supported the case and altogether three witnesses have been examined before the learned trial court. The petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2021. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that the petitioner is already facing trial before the trial court and witnesses are being examined, so he should await the result of the trial.

Having regard to the submissions made hereinabove and considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months.

If the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) Rajnish/- U T