Sonu Rajbanshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23053 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2019 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada ====================================================== Sonu Rajbanshi, Male, aged about 23 years, son of Late Mundrika Rajbanshi, resident of Village - Modi Bigha, Police Station- Hisua, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 05-11-2020 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State through video conferencing. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Hisua P.S. Case No. 182 of 2019 registered for the offence under Section 302 / 376 D.B. / 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 5 (g) / 6 of the POCSO Act.

The allegation as per the First Information Report is that the petitioner along with other accused person has committed rape and murder of the grand daughter of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion and as an after thought. Learned counsel further submits that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of his alleged confessional statement made before the Police. Learned counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23053 of 2020(4) dt.05-11-2020 2/2 further submits that the medical examination of the private parts of the petitioner was also held in which the doctor has opined that there is no sign of any external injury on the private parts. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 04.12.2019. Learned counsel also submits that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there is circumstantial evidence against the petitioner and the petitioner has vividly described the manner in which the crime was committed in his confessional statement. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for regular bail after one year if the trial does not show any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T