Sachin Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32624 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2020 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sachin Yadav, Son of Devmuni Yadav, Resident of Village - Basdihan, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sucheta Yadav, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and Ms. Sucheta Yadav, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 20 of 2020, arising out of Karakat P.S. Case No. 69 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 363/376 D/341/342/328/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 4/6 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story the informant alleged that she had love affair with Ravi Kumar and Ravi Kumar pressurized her to establish relation with his friend Sachin Yadav. It is alleged that Sachin Yadav established physical relations with her many times

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2020(6) dt.29-01-2021 2/3 forcibly. Learned counsel submitted that informant thereafter named other persons also and involved other accused persons for committing rape on her and in that course she travelled upto Delhi where she lived for 7 months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the informant established relationship with petitioner voluntarily and she travelled upto Delhi and made allegations of commission of rape against other accused persons also. The petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2020. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the materials which have transpired in the case diary wherein the case has been found true only against this petitioner and the investigation agency has found that the other co-accused were not found involved and the chargesheet bearing no. 871/2020 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 has been filed against this petitioner alone, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of regular bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is refused.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2020(6) dt.29-01-2021 3/3 Let the trial be expedited. The trial court is expected to proceed with the trial without granting any unnecessary adjournment and all endeavour should be made to fix a shorter date in the matter.

Case Diary has been returned, let it be taken on record.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rishi/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.