Rahul Sharma @ Kaila v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57748 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2020 Thana- HATHIDAH District- Patna ====================================================== RAHUL SHARMA @ KAILA Son of Mahendra Mishtri @ Mahendra Sharma Resident of Village - Dariyapur Murarpur, P.S. - Hathidah, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks after complete start of the physical Court. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 94 of 2020 arising out of Hathidah P.S. Case No. 42 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2020, is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted. The informant alleges that she saw the petitioner committing sexual assault with her three and half years old
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57748 of 2021(3) dt.07-03-2022 2/3 daughter near north side of her house where garbage is kept and the victim was crying.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on account of dispute between the parties and the informant took this as an opportunity to implicate the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is a lunatic/unsound mind which would be evident from Annexure-2 to the bail application. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner was not able and capable to understand the consequences of his action.
Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that no mother would falsely implicate a person with such heinous allegation. Learned A.P.P. further submits that if what has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is true then the Vakalatnama ought to have been signed by a guardian or a person representing the petitioner as person of unsound mind or a minor is not entitled to file Vakalatnama, rather they have to be represented through their legal guardian.
Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case pending in the Court of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57748 of 2021(3) dt.07-03-2022 3/3 learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Patna.
Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T