Dhiraj Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28909 of 2015 (3) dt.27-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28909 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -282 Year- 2014 Thana -BIBHUTIPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Dhiraj Kumar Ram son of Ram Kailash Ram, Resident of village- Narhan Kali Asthan, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. N. P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M. Rab (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 27-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 282 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioner committed rape with the informant forcibly and in that process he bite on both cheeks and breast.

Submission is of false implication and that the informant has filed the case after much delay only with a view to compel the petitioner to arrange marriage with her but good sense has prevailed and she has filed compromise petition in the court

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28909 of 2015 (3) dt.27-10-2015 below and further the doctor has found that it is a case of attempt to rape as no sign or rape was found to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that circular teeth bite mark on left cheek of the informant was found by the doctor and in statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has supported the allegation.

In the facts and circumstances stated above and considering the allegation to be serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as per amended proviso of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T