Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2824/2016rejected

Raghwesh Raghav v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-15Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2824 of 2016 (3) dt.15-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2824 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -514 Year- 2014 Thana -BEGUSARAI TOWN District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Raghwesh Raghav, Son of Late Mithilesh Chaudhary, resident of VillageParihara, P.S.- Bakhri District- Begusarai..... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 514 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner committed rape with the informant and further took away amount of Rs. 1,000/- and again snatched ornaments and was making plan to sell her for Rs. 50,000/-.

Submission is of false implication and that the occurrence is of 03.08.2014 and 04.08.2014 but the first information report has been lodged on 11.08.2014, during investigation the informant has been examined by the doctor but

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2824 of 2016 (3) dt.15-03-2016 no evidence of rape was found, her husband is deaf and dumb and only with a view to take illegal advantage, the informant has lodged this case falsely and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration as he is suffering in custody since 01.12.2015.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in view of amended proviso of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U Tt