← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41037/2022bail rejected

Sanoj Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2022-11-04Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41037 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali ====================================================== SANOJ PASWAN S/o Shri Bhola Paswan R/o village- Basudeopur Chandel, P.S.- Mahnar, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Braj Kishore Singh Chouhan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-11-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (D)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, when the prosecutrix who was going to Patori Bazar at 11.30 am, the petitioner and co-accused Sonu Paswan came there riding on a motorcycle and they asked her to help in dropping her home. The accused persons brought her at Tari (Chour) near river and committed gang rape at the point of knife and after ravishing the prosecutrix they left her there and went away.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41037 of 2022(2) dt.04-11-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no sign of rape has been found as per medical examination. He has also submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated due to dirty village politics.

The victim in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has reiterated the allegation made in her fardbeyan. The motive of false implication has not specifically been mentioned. In my view, it is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T