Salamat Ullah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31669 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Aurangabad ====================================================== SALAMAT ULLAH Son of Late Hakimuddin @ Abdul Hakimuddin Resident of Village Bala Pokhar, P.S. Deo, District - Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Atul Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Aurangabad Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020, registered under Section 376(A-B) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Spl. Judge (POCSO), Aurangabad.

The accusation is that in the evening of 07.06.2020, minor daughter of informant Shabina Praveen was playing at the door, at that time, Salamatullah (petitioner) took her in his house and committed rape. When her daughter started weeping then she was threatened for dire consequences in case of disclosing the incident. When Mansoor Alam,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31669 of 2020(3) dt.18-01-2021 2/2 husband of informant, returned to house after doing the job of labourer then minor daughter of informant narrated the incident.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is a tailor and neighbour of the informant, has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. The petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2020.

On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner with submission that victim, minor daughter of informant, has supported the allegation, as made in the F.I.R., in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in medical examination, the age of the victim was assessed between 6-7 years and her hymen was found old ruptured.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T