Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22737 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2022 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran ====================================================== Manoj Kumar S/o Singasan Mahto, R/o Village - Manorpur, P.S- Amnour, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2024 Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sharda Kumari, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 31.03.2022 in connection with Amnour P.S. Case No. 38 of 2022, FIR dated 12.02.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 366, 504 506/34, 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. 3.

Earlier the petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 29895, which was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2022.

4.

According to the prosecution case, the petitioner eloped with the married daughter of the informant.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22737 of 2024(5) dt.17-05-2024 2/2 the present case and the allegation levelled in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.

6.

Vide order dated 20.03.2024, a report was called for with regard to the stage of the trial and report dated 02.04.2024 of the learned trial Court reveals that out of eight chargesheeted witnesses, seven witnesses have already been examined and defence has not produced any witnesses and the case is fixed for the argument. 7.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

8.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the report of the learned trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Amnour P.S. Case No. 38 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Saran at Chapra. 9.

Prayer is refused.

10.

However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T