Suhail Aajam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53315 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2023 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Suhail Aajam Son of Ramjan Ali R/O Vill.- Ramhan Bigha, P.s.- Nabinagar, Dist.- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Patna 2.

Jeba Khatoon Daughter of Gulzar Ahmad R/O Vill.- Ramhan Bigha, P.s.- Nabinagar, Dist.- Aurangabad.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP For the Informant :

Ms. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 06-12-2024 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Nabinagar P.S. Case No.157 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.

3.

Allegedly, when informant was alone in the house, petitioner forcibly entered in her house and on point of pistol he made physical relation with her. When the informant tried to rise hulla, he threatened to kill her and her brother. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsels for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53315 of 2024(3) dt.06-12-2024 2/2 submitted that petitioner and informant were in love and were willing to marry each other but informant's parents were not ready as petitioner belongs to poor family and present case has been lodged to separate the petitioner from the informant. There is delay of about 8 months and 20 days in lodging the FIR without having proper explanation for the delay. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 22.05.2024.

5.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of regular bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for regular bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T