Sachin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14694 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1146 Year-2021 Thana- Nawada District- Nawada ====================================================== Sachin Kumar S/o Balajit Singh R/o village- Dewanpura, P.S.- Kadirganj O.P., District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-08-2022 Let the defect, if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

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

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Pocso Case No. 90/ 2021 arising out of Nawada town (Kadirganj (O.P.) P.S. Case No. 1146 of 2021 lodged under Section 376 of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Pocso Act. As per the prosecution case, the allegation in the F.I.R. against the present petitioner who is a sole accused person attempt to the Court and Pocso Act has also been added in this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and due to village politics his name has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14694 of 2022(4) dt.23-08-2022 2/2 been figured in this case. He further submits that accused is in custody since 23.10.2021 in this case. He submits that charge sheet has already been filed in this case. He further submits that petitioner's antecedent is clean and Pocso Act has not attracted in this case. Due to the reason that in her statement under Section 164, she is not treated as juvenile and shown herself as major.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is a direct allegation in the F.I.R. as per the version of the victim herself. He further submits that the victim has fully supported her version in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also. From the order sheet, it transpires that charge has already been framed in this case and case is going on for the evidence of prosecution.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

But liberty is hereby granted that he may renew his prayer after one year from the date of rejection. In the meantime, trial court is directed to expedite the trial as earliest as possible.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) sadique/- U T