Piyush Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43007 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2020 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== PIYUSH YADAV S/o Bhutto Yadav R/o village- Murlipahari (Kataria), P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 22-03-2022 A supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner in Court. The same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P appearing for the State.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 376, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act and sections 3(1)(r)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As per the prosecution case, it is stated that the petitioner made an attempt to ravish the minor informant. On her raising hulla and her parents coming out of the house on hearing the hulla, the accused escaped.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43007 of 2021(7) dt.22-03-2022 2/3 that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to village politics. The manner and time of occurrence as described in the FIR raises serious doubts about the occurrence having taken place in the manner alleged. The petitioner is in custody since 12.8.2020 and has cooperated in the case/trial. It is further submitted that the trial in the learned court below commenced and three witnesses on behalf of the prosecution which includes the victim and two other co-villagers have been examined and they did not support the prosecution case.

Referring to the deposition of the victim which has been brought on record as Annexure to the supplementary affidavit, it is submitted that the victim has not supported the prosecution case and the other two witnesses have turned hostile. Three witnesses still remain to be examined on behalf of the prosecution, however, as there is no chance of the trial ending in the conviction of the petitioner it is submitted that the petitioner having remained in custody for over 1 year 7 months, he be enlarged on bail. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

Heard learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from the materials on record it transpires that only three official witnesses ie the Investigating Officer, doctor and the lady

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43007 of 2021(7) dt.22-03-2022 3/3 constable remain to be examined on behalf of the prosecution in the trial.

Taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR and the materials on record, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. In view of the fact that only official witnesses remain to be examined, the Superintendent of Police, Munger is directed to ensure the presence of the official witnesses in the trial on each day without any delay and the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within the period of four months from the date of receipt / communication of this order. (Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T