Ravi Prakash @ Laddu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36381 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2020 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ravi Prakash @ Laddu Singh Son of Chandeshwar Singh R/o Village - Ramihida, P.S. - Chakia, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prateek Tandon,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 22-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2020 in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 103 of 2020 for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with rape allegedly committed upon the victim. It is submitted that according to the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., she was forcibly confined in the house by one Neelu Devi where the petitioner came with Prabhat Kumar. The petitioner allegedly prohibited the victim from going to her house, after which, rape is said to have been committed by Prabhat Kumar. The accused persons then took her and left her in a field. The petitioner has suffered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36381 of 2020(4) dt.22-03-2021 2/2 more than eight months in custody since 04.07.2020 and claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP appears and has been heard.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of offence alleged and considering the role of the petitioner as well as the medical report which discloses the age of the victim girl between 15-16 years, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The bail petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T