Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11421/2023rejected

Tinku Sharma @ Tinku Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-02Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11421 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-324 Year-2022 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== TINKU SHARMA @ TINKU KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SONU LAL SHARMA R/O PALODANGA, HOSPUR, P.S.- AZAMNAGAR, DISTRICTKATIHAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 02-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 376, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of forcibly raping the informant on the false pretext of marriage.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. There is delay in lodging in FIR as such occurrence date is of 14.09.2022 and the FIR has been lodged on 02.10.2022. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.10.2022.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11421 of 2023(3) dt.02-08-2023 2/2 application for bail and submitted that the victim is a minor girl, who is aged about 15 years. The statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., which is mentioned in para-31 of the case diary in which, she stated that this petitioner forcibly committed rape upon her, which corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T