Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30155/2023rejected

Saddam Khan @ Guddu Khan v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-16Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30155 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2023 Thana- GOH District- Aurangabad ====================================================== SADDAM KHAN @ GUDDU KHAN SON OF SALIM KHAN Resident of Village- Damodarpur, P.S.- Goh, District-Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 16-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 354(C)(D), 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of establishing physical relationship upon the informant after showing her objectionable video and threatened her to viral the same.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that there is a contradiction between the prosecution case and the victim's statement recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the victim denied herself to be examined medically in respect of the rape. Petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30155 of 2023(5) dt.16-10-2023 2/2 is languishing in judicial custody since 21.02.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR and the victim is a minor girl. The victim's statement has been recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she stated that the petitioner committed rape upon her against her will and the victim girl supported the allegations made in the prosecution case against the petitioner. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T