Vinod Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45626 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-612 Year-2020 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vinod Mahto, Son of Arjun Mahto, Resident of Village- Paroo Majaulia, P.S.- Paroo, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Anjana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Nr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-04-2022 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.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 612 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that while the victim was playing outside the house, in the meanwhile, accused Vinod Mahto (petitioner) took the victim near Balua pond and committed penetrative sexual assault.

It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2020. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45626 of 2021(3) dt.20-04-2022 2/2 further submitted that the injury report is dated 06.12.2020, though the F.I.R. has been instituted on 07.12.2020, showing the occurrence took place on 07.12.2020, causing serious doubt over the prosecution case.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having considered the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence coupled with the statement of the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. Furthermore, the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and he categorically supported the prosecution case, inasmuch, as the injury report also corroborates the allegation of penetrative sexual assault on a child, aged about 6-7 years, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stands rejected.

However, it is expected that the trial court will take all necessary steps to conclude the trial as early as possible. (Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T