Kanhaiya @ Kanhaiya Lal Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10319 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2022 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Kanhaiya @ Kanhaiya Lal Thakur Son of Chandeshwar Thakur Resident of Village- Chhotaipatti Thikagharari, P.S.- Darbhanga Sadar, DistrictDarbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jagdish Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 18.09.2022 in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No. 319 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 16.09.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4/6 of POCSO Act. According to prosecution case, the petitioner has committed rape upon the daughter of the informant during the time when she went village fair at Badhsamaila. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the occurrence took place on 14.09.2022 but the present F.I.R. has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10319 of 2023(3) dt.24-06-2023 2/2 been instituted on 16.09.2022 i.e. after delay of 2 days without giving any explanation of the said delay. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R and the medical report also does not support the allegation leveled against the petitioner.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of material available on record as well as case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically stated that the petitioner has committed rape upon her on 14.09.2022. He further submits that with respect to medical report of the victim is concerned, the same was conducted on 17.09.2022 therefore, the doctor was unable to find anything. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No. 319 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Darbhanga.

Prayer is refused.

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