Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21878/2021bail rejected

Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-07-15Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21878 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2020 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== RAUSHAN KUMAR Son of Vinod Ram @ Vinod Kumar Resident of Village - Sevdah, P.O.- Birju Milki, P.S.- Harnaut, District - Nalanda, Bihar- 803110, At present residing on rent in the house of Arvind Kumar, Maurya Path Near Shyamal Hospital Slum, P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyameshwar Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-07-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Rajeev Nagar P.S. Case No. 162 of 2020 corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case No. 101 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 366(A) and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution case, all the accused persons including this petitioner took the informant to an isolated place and committed rape with her.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21878 of 2021(2) dt.15-07-2021 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 02.06.2020 having no criminal antecedent. Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of gang rape. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature and gravity of of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T