Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19924/2024bail rejected

Piyush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-28Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19924 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2023 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Piyush kumar Son of Jay Prakash Yadav R/o Village- Bharela, Poura, P.S.- Gogari, District- Khagaria .. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 350 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354(B), 354(D), 509, 506, 376 and 511 of IPC.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, the informant while cutting grass behind her house, suddenly Piyush Kumar, the petitioner came to her and caught her behind and started tampering with her and on protest the accused snatched her "Kachia" from her and cut the hand of the informant. It is further alleged that the accused fled away from there after seeing the villagers and threatened her for dire consequences, if she files any case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19924 of 2024(2) dt.28-03-2024 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to previous enmity and dirty village politics. He further submits that the petitioner is custody since 11.10.2023.

5. However, learned APP for the State strongly opposed the prayer for regular bail.

6. On perusal of FIR and impugned order dated 19.12.2023, it appears that the petitioner has bitten the victim on her face and attempted to rape her and the witnesses have supported the prosecution story and the injury report mentioned the bite mark on the body of the victim. This is a very heinous offence so, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is accordingly, rejected.

8. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date receipt of a copy of this order and if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) saurabhkr/- U T