Kamdeo Paswan @ Latariya Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49048 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA District- Munger ====================================================== Kamdeo Paswan @ Latariya Paswan Son of Late Sahdeo Paswan Resident of Village - Akhara Tola Ratanpur, P.S. - Bariyarpur, District - Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Munish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Munger Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution case, on the basis of fardbeyan of informant/victim alleging therein that she alongwith her sister-in-law had gone to Rishikund Champakol Forest for taking Sakhua leaves. After returning from forest Chowkidar Kamdeo Paswan @ Latariya Paswan caught her, dragged her and started committing rape with her. When her sister-in-law

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49048 of 2021(3) dt.24-03-2022 2/2 came there, he fled away from the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present case on the ground that the petitioner is the Chowkidar of that locality. The said fact of the case is that the victims was selling illegal wine and the petitioner objected the same. Due to this reason the informant/victim falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2021. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the basis of material available on the record and case diary submits that the statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 23.04.2021 and victim has supported the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. The sister-in-law of the victim also supported the accusation.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T