Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37958/2016rejected

Arun Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-22Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37958 of 2016 (2) dt.22-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37958 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -130 Year- 2015 Thana -MANIYARI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Arun Ram son of Late Fudeni Ram Resident of Village- Methurapur, Police Station- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur..... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Anand For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Prem Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Maniyari P.S. Case No. 130 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner committed unnatural sexual offence against the victim aged about 6 years, resulting, he started weeping and blood was also oozing.

Submission is of false implication and that due to land dispute the petitioner has been implicated, medical report does not support the prosecution case as no spermatozoa was found. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, the petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2015 and up till now no prosecution witness has been examined and, as such, he deserves sympathetic

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37958 of 2016 (2) dt.22-09-2016 consideration to which the learned APP seriously opposes. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after taking the same on priority basis, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T