Pawan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26029 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -68 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA PS District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Pawan Kumar, son of Manoj Prasad, resident of Village- Mehara, Police Station- Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Asha Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Jehanabad Mahila P.S.Case No. 68 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of POCSO Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of committing rape of the daughter of the informant.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that whole prosecution case is not believable and appears to be false and concocted and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. It has further been submitted that in paragraph22 of the case diary I.O. has examined some villagers, who have stated that occurrence took place on 7.10.2016 and name of coaccused Chandan Kumar has taken and not the petitioner, which

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26029 of 2017 (4) dt.11-07-2017 2/2 shows falsity of the case and petitioner is in custody for nine months.

Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and from perusal of record it appears that prosecutrix as well as by informant had supported the case in her evidence and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted against the petitioner, as such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

However, as the petitioner is in custody for the last nine months, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same within a period of six months and at the same time Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad is directed to ensure presence of the witnesses in court on the date fixed, so that trial be concluded within the said period, otherwise petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U