Shivjee Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8147 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2020 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SHIVJEE RAI Son of Dahaur Rai Resident of Village - Baji Bujurg, P.s.- Sakra, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 30-03-2022 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nirmala Kumari, learned APP for the State. Petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail inasmuch as earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on merit vide order dated 06.01.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27780/2020.

As per First Information Report, the petitioner tried to commit rape upon seven years old minor grand daughter of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to dispute between the parties inasmuch as the petitioner is a neighbour of the informant. He next submits that the petitioner is 55 years of age having three daughters and two sons.

This Court vide order dated 23.02.2022 had called for a report from the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO-cum-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8147 of 2022(3) dt.30-03-2022 2/2 ADJ 1st, Muzaffarpur regarding stage of the trial and in pursuance thereof, the report vide Letter No. 92/2021 dated 11.03.2022 has been received and from perusal of the same, it would be evident that out of six charge-sheet witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and cross-examined and two witnesses i.e., doctor and I.O are yet to be examined. The report further reveals that name of the victim does not figure in the column of witnesses and the trial of this case may be concluded within six months if the prosecution and defence co-operates the court properly.

In view of the fact that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected on its merit and the report of the trial court states that this case may be concluded within six months, I see no reason to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

However, petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today if the trial does not register any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T