Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30951/2017rejected

Janardan Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-25Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30951 of 2017 (3) dt.25-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30951 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -188 Year- 2016 Thana -PARSABAZAR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Janardan Ravidas, S/o Late Lemu Lal @ Ram Kishan Ram, resident of Village Lakhani Bigha P.S. Danapur District Patna. At present Shahpur Ravidas tola, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pranaya Shanker Sinha, Adv., For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Panchanand Pandit, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amresh, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2016 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 153 of 2016 arising out of Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 188 of 2016 registered under Sections 302, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. and mere on confession of the petitioner, he has been made accused in this case. Except confession, no cogent material has come during course of investigation against the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in custody for the last ten months.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30951 of 2017 (3) dt.25-07-2017 Learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted in his confession that he committed rape on the daughter of the informant and when she tried to raise alarm, she was done to death by gagging her mouth. Therefore, the petitioner, who has committed a heinous crime, cannot be allowed to be enlarged on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail to this petitioner is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J.) Brajesh/- U T