Chhotu Yadav @ Chhotu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2685 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya ====================================================== CHHOTU YADAV @ CHHOTU KUMAR SON OF KARU YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BAJAURA, P.S. - DOBHI, DISTRICT - GAYA ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.

SUGIYA DEVI WIFE OF RAM CHANDRA MANJHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SHIVRATIPUR, P.S. - DOBHI, DISTRICT - GAYA ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Shivendra Prasad, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2.

This is an appeal under section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 04.05.2023 passed by learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.52 of 2022, registered u/s 376 of the IPC and sections 3(i), (r), (s), (w), (I) 3(2), (v-a) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3.

Allegation against the appellant is that of committing rape upon the victim.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2685 of 2023(6) dt.28-06-2024 2/2 4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated in this csae. The accusation does not constitute any offence under SC/ST Act is made out inasmuch as there is no allegation that the alleged occurrence has taken place in public view. It is submitted that the trial is going on and the victim has been declared hostile during her deposition. No other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The appellant has no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned Spl. PP for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

In the facts and circumstance of the case and considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. The prayer for bail on his behalf is rejected. 7.

However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. 8.

Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T