Sheikh Alim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11505 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2021 Thana- PRANPUR District- Katihar ====================================================== Sheikh Alim, Son of Late Seikh Hanif, Resident of Village- Shah Nagar, P.S.- Pranpur (Roshna O.P.), District- Katihar, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pranpur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under Section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner enticed the minor daughter of the informant and took her away to his house and tried to outrage her modesty. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and the case against him is completely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11505 of 2022(2) dt.04-07-2022 2/3 false. There is a land dispute between the petitioner and the informant's side since 2010. The petitioner is aged about 74 years. Further the matter has been compromised between the parties and a compromise petition has been filed before the learned court below. The petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2021.

Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that there is specific allegation against this petitioner and the victim girl has corroborated the allegation in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Having regard to the submissions made hereinabove and considering the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months.

If the trial is not concluded within a period of nine months, then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11505 of 2022(2) dt.04-07-2022 3/3