Shatrughan Rai @ Shatrughan Ray @ Shatrudhan Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9660 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2014 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Shatrughan Rai @ Shatrughan Ray @ Shatrudhan Ray S/O Saryug Ray Resident Of Village- Khajuri, P.S. Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur..Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jai Prakash Verma,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2022 Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of starting of Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he ravished to the victim, a girl aged about 14 years.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion and the petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged occurrence. He further submits that the real fact is that there was love affair between the victim and one

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9660 of 2022(3) dt.26-07-2022 2/2 Kunkun Sahni. He further submits that the father of the coaccused namely, Ayodhi Sahni lodged an FIR bearing Gaighat P.S.Case No.186 of 2012 against the family members of the informant and for that reason the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2021.

Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the basis of the material available on the record and the case diary, has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim was recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has categorically stated that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have committed rape upon her and at the time of incident, the victim, aged about 14 years. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mahila P.S.Case No.51 of 2014 pending in the court of learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Muzaffarpur. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T