Pradeep Yadav @ Pramod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33386 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2023 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== Pradeep Yadav @ Pramod Yadav Son Of Late Anodi Yadav R/O-Uprama, P.S.-Rajaun, Distt.-Banka ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Davendra Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Usha Kumari 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 30-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Rajaun P.S. Case No. 89 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w)/3(ii) (va) of the SC/ST Act and section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have committed rape with the minor daughter of the informant who is aged about just 22 months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner had given Rs. 2000/- to the informant as debt and when he demanded the same, some scuffle took place between them and as a result of which the informant falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33386 of 2023(3) dt.30-08-2023 2/2 petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petitioner. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 20.2.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the informant has made specific & direct gruesome allegation against the petitioner regarding commission of rape with her daughter. The victim/daughter of the informant is aged about hardly 22 months. The restatement of the informant along with witnesses of the case have supported the prosecution. The medical report of the victim also corroborates the prosecution case in which injuries were found on Perineum and Vaginal part of the the victim girl.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the gravity of the 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 expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

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