Bhallu Rishideo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17305 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2015 Thana -BAUNSI District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Bhallu Rishideo, Son of Satya Narayan Rishideo, Resident of VillageDeoasthal, Police Station- Bounsi, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajkishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 16.03.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3467 of 2016 and order dated 22.03.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11699 of 2017, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 24.09.2015 and up till now only five prosecution witnesses have been examined. The victim was married to co-accused Pappu Rishideo and she had gone with Pappu Rishideo but she has wrongly stated the name of the petitioner in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17305 of 2018 (2) dt.28-03-2018 2/2 The learned A.P.P. seriously opposes prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner and others committed rape with the daughter aged 13 years of the informant and they used to administer injection of intoxicant. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail, again prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2016 arising out of Bausi P.S. Case No. 109 of 2015 pending in the court of 1st Additional SessionsCum- Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Araria. However, considering detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U