Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51587/2016rejected

Danish v. The State Of Bihar

2016-12-06Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51587 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- KISANGANJ ======================================================

1. Danish Son of Nazim Resident of village - Maheshmara, Police Station Paharkatta, District - Kishanganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mannan Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv.

: Mr. Najmul Hoda, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 08.04.2016 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 6702 of 2016 on the ground that the occurrence is of 04.05.2015, but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.05.2015 after much delay, father of the petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 457C of 2015 against the informant and others, medical evidence also does not support the allegation of rape and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that allegedly the petitioner forcibly committed rape with the informant when she has gone to attend

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51587 of 2016 (2) dt.06-12-2016 2/2 the call of nature.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of bail, again prayer of bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Sessions Case No. 100 of 2016 (arising out of Kishanganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015) pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 2nd, Kishanganj.

However, considering the period of detention of the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) siddharth/- U T