Chandradeep Yadav@ Chandip Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25069 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2023 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Chandradeep Yadav@ Chandip Yadav SON OF DUKHI YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BANUA, PO AND PS- NAUHATTA, DIST- ROHTAS ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

BINDA KUER WIFE OF LATE BALDEO RAM VILLAGE- BUNUA, PO AND PS- NAWHATTA, DIST- ROHTAS ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashutosh Tripathy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Usha Kumari 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-09-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 83 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 363, 376(D)34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(i)(C)/3(i)(W)(i)/3(2)(v)SC/ST Act.

3. As per allegation, when the daughter of the informant went to attend the call of nature, the petitioner along with other accused persons named in the FIR came there and kidnapped her, after gagging her mouth. Further, they brought her in a field and committed rape with her. It has also been mentioned that blood was oozing out of her private part.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is contradiction in the statement of the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25069 of 2024(4) dt.12-09-2024 2/2 between her earlier statement and restatement. She did not state in her FIR that the victim came to her house and narrated the entire occurrence to the informant whereas in restatement, she narrated different stories. He has also submitted that the witnesses in course of investigation have stated that there was love and affection between the victim and the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that out of six witnesses 5 have been examined and only doctor has remained to be examined.

6. It appears that the trial is on the verge of its conclusion.

7. In my view the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

8. The learned court below is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall renew his prayer for bail before the learned court below itself.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T