Umesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32652 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Umesh Yadav Son of Sri Brahma Yadav Resident of Village- Anand Nagar Awsani, Ward No. 07, PS- Bagaha (Patkhauli), District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amrit Kirti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP For the Informant : Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

3. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 09.03.2023 in connection with Bagaha Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 07.03.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4. According to prosecution case, this petitioner while on the way to home, has committed wrong with the minor daughter of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32652 of 2023(3) dt.08-08-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C in which she has supported the allegation and has particularly stated that the petitioner has committed rape upon her and the medical report of the victim also confirms the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R and in the statement of the victim which was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. They further submits that at the time of occurrence, the victim was minor.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Bagaha Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge VII cum Special Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah.

8. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T