Srichand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32036 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2018 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== SRICHAND KUMAR Son of Shri Baleshwar Ravidas Resident of Village - Surhari, P.S. Muffasil, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamal Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Pushpa Sinha 1 (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. This application for grant of regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 107 of 2018 arises out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 356 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 376 DA, 354(I) (II), 341, 342, 323, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 67, 67(A), 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

The petitioner's application for grant of regular bail was earlier rejected by this Court by an order dated 20.11.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48541 of 2019.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2020(3) dt.24-02-2021 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 2 years, he deserves to be granted privilege of regular bail.

A report dated 28.01.2021, as called for from the Court below, as regards up to date status of the trial arising out of the case has been submitted by learned Special Judge POCSO-cum-A.D.J.-VI, Gaya from which it appears that 3 out of 10 witnesses have already been examined. The date 02.02.2021 was fixed for evidence.

Since the trial has progressed, considering the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail for the present. This application is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if in the meanwhile, there is no substantial progress at the trial.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) AKASH/- U T