Sugan Mahato v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23723 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2018 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== SUGAN MAHATO Son of Late Deonath mahto Resident of Village - Ratanmala, P.S.- Majhauliya, Distt.- Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-11-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application for regular bail arises out of Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 373 of 2018, disclosing the offence punishable under Sections 376 (Changed U/S 376D) of the Indian Penal Code and 4/5(g) of POCSO Act.
Considering the nature of the accusation and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., this Court had earlier rejected petitioner's prayer for regular bail by an order dated 13.10.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12817 of 2020 with an observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the victim at the trial.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23723 of 2021(3) dt.29-11-2021 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the victim has been examined at the trial and she has not identified the petitioner as perpetrator of the crime.
By an order dated 10.09.2021, a report was called for in this case as regards present stage of the trial and the tentative time within which trial could be concluded. Accordingly, a report dated 17.09.2021 has been received from the court below from which it appears that the trial is likely to conclude within 4 months from the said date.
Since the trial is at advanced stage, I am not inclined to entertain this application of prayer for bail. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after 4 months if, in the meanwhile, the trial does not conclude.
This application is accordingly rejected, with the aforesaid observation.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) K.K.RAO/- U T