← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4505/2017dismissed

Raju Verma v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-14Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4505 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Raju Verma S/o Shiv Nandan Saw R/o Village Parwalpur, P.S.- Parwalpur, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 14-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 109 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4/8 POCSO Act pending in the Court of Additional District Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, Nalanda, Biharsharif.

It is alleged that the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the sister of the informant committed rape with her when she had gone to the house of her sister. She also alleged that the petitioner had taken nude photographs and gave threat to send the same on internet. She also alleged that she became pregnant and this petitioner got her abortion. The statement of the victim

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4505 of 2017 (2) dt.14-02-2017 2/2 girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C wherein she has supported the case and leveled specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape and getting abortion after giving threat to send the nude photograph on internet. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner being husband of sister of the informant has committed such offence with informant, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. The prayer is rejected.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial without giving unnecessary adjournment to any parties. (Sanjay Priya, J) Prakash/- U