Salauddin @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28146 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2021 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== SALAUDDIN @ CHHOTU SON OF MD. ALIM R/O VILLAGE- CHATRI TOL, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 09-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing in view of the COVID 19.

Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office be removed within four weeks.

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with POCSO Case No. 58 of 2021 arising out of Bhagwanpur (Teyai) P.S. Case No. 183 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. As per the FIR, the petitioner herein established physical relationship with the informant, Anguri Khatoon which resulted into pregnancy and it is alleged that despite the fact that she was pregnant of 26 weeks, the petitioner once again on 29.08.2021 attempted to rape her. She anynow saved herself with the help of local villagers and as the petitioner chose to look the other way on the point of marriage, this FIR was lodged.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28146 of 2022(2) dt.09-09-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has submitted a petition before the learned Trial Court for D.N.A. Test of the child to establish the relationship which is presently pending. He as such submits that unless it is established whether the child belongs to him, he should be given the benefit of doubt. Per contra, learned APP representing the State submits that there is direct allegation of rape against him and despite the fact that she was pregnant of 26 weeks once again, on 29.08.2021 he forcibly lifted the lady from her home and tried to rape her and in that background, he does not deserve bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts, there is direct allegation of rape against the petitioner herein and which he even attempted when the minor girl was pregnant, this Court is not inclined to give any relief to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/NehaU T