Chhotu Rawani @ Chhotu Ramani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41486 of 2019 Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-37 Year-2018 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== Chhotu Rawani @ Chhotu Ramani, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Shiv Ratan Ram Resident of Village- Gewal Bigha, Akhada, P.S.- Rampur and District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Akbar Ali, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Madhav Roy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with POCSO Case No.17 of 2018 arising out of Rampur P.S.Case No.37 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act) Gaya registered for an offence under Sections 363, 364, 366A, 302, 201, 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 4 and 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

It is alleged in the FIR that the allegation against this petitioner is that he has kidnapped, raped and murdered minor

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41486 of 2019(3) dt.20-09-2019 2/2 daughter of the informant who was aged about six years. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.02.2018.

In view of the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have kidnapped a minor daughter of the informant and thereafter raped and finally murdered her and also considering that the petitioner has criminal antecedent and also the fact that the case is on the verge of disposal, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the the trial within six months from the date of this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) B.Kr./- U T