Md. Tarik @ Md. Farman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33965 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2021 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== Md. Tarik @ Md. Farman S/o Md. Rafique R/o Balwa, P.S.- Amdabad, DisttKatihar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Upendra Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Virtual Court proceeding. Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.
Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amdabad P.S. Case No. 11 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
According to prosecution case, the informant in her statement before S.H.O. Amdabad police station that in the night went to natural call and after natural when she was coming back, the accused person namely Md. Tarik caught her from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33965 of 2021(4) dt.15-02-2022 2/2 back side, pressed her mouth, raped with her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present case only because the family of the petitioner refuse to marry with the victim girl. He further submits that as per F.I.R. the date of occurrence is 08.01.2021 but the present F.I.R. is instituted on 17.01.2021. The petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2021. The learned counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that as per the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has supported the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. and medical report also supported the same.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the same stands rejected.
However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T