Tengari Ram @ Raj Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12065 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2019 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas ====================================================== TENGARI RAM @ RAJ KUMAR RAM S/o - Ganesh Ram Resident of Village- Koath, P.S.- Dewath, Distt- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajiva Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 43 of 2019, arising out of Dawat P.S. Case No. 73 of 2019, registered under Sections 376, 323 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram Rohtas.

The accusation is that on 28.04.2019, Tengari Ram (Petitioner) and Doma Ram came near the informant and brought her, forcibly, on motorcycle and carried her at their Fufa's house, where both committed rape upon the informant and left after one day to her house. On 30.04.2019, both came at the house of informant and threatened her family members

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12065 of 2020(3) dt.15-06-2020 2/2 not to lodge case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner and co-accused are next door neighbours of father of informant and they have falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. Further submission is that in the medical examination, no sign of rape was found and age of informant has been assessed between 15 to 16 years. The petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2019. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six month. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T