Sonam Kumar Yadav @ Priyadarshi Raj @ Priyadarshi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34088 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2022 Thana- SONBERSHA RAJ District- Saharsa ====================================================== Sonam Kumar Yadav @ Priyadarshi Raj @ Priyadarshi son of Dilip Yadav Resident of Tamkulha, P.S.- Sonvarsha Raj, District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Shankar Yadav S/o- Bindeshwari Yadav, R/o- Jamhara Ward No-11, P.S.- Sonwarsha Raj, Dist.- Saharsa ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ram Babu, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Informant :
Mrs. Reshmi Jha, Advocate Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-12-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned A.P.P. for the State and Learned Counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Spl. POCSO Case No. 48 of 2022 arising out of Sonbarsa Raj P.S. Case No. 133 of 2022, lodged on 11.06.2022 under Sections 341, 323, 366A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.
3. The bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 55696 of 2022 in which liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail one year after framing of charge.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34088 of 2024(7) dt.06-12-2024 2/3
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has already been framed in this case on 01.03.2023, and one year has already been lapsed.
5. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Learned Counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim girl had handed over to her mother, however, she eloped again and there is no trace till date and, in this regard, an application was also filed before the Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Saharsa. Counsel further submits that the progress report was called for, and from the progress report, it becomes very much clear that charge has already been framed in this case, and out of four charge-sheet prosecution witnesses, evidence of three charge-sheet prosecution witnesses has already been taken place, and only evidence of one prosecution witness has to take place.
7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
8. It is directed to the Trial Court to conclude the trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34088 of 2024(7) dt.06-12-2024 3/3 as early as possible. It is hereby directed to the Counsel for the informant to produce the prosecution witness, if examination not took place on behalf of the prosecution.
(Dr. Anshuman, J) Aman Kumar/- U T