Ashok Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2946 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2022 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== ASHOK RAY Son of Biju Rai Resident of Village - Kuawa Mall, P.S.- Rajepur, District - East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rupa Kumari Wife of Kamal Ram Resident of Village - Bala Kothi, P.S.- Rajepur, District - East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Sadanand Paswan. 2.

This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 4-8-2022 in A.B.P. No. 1340 of 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 20/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376D and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

3.

Learned Spl. PP, at the outset, after perusing the case-diary, submits that process under Section 82 Cr.PC has been issued on 26-3-2022. It is further submitted that the instant

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2946 of 2022(4) dt.14-05-2024 2/2 appeal came to be filed on 22-8-2022, i.e., five months after the process under Section 82 Cr.PC was issued. It is also submitted that it is a case of rape where the informant specifically alleges that Vikki and Subodh raped her, while the appellant along with others were making video of the occurrence. It is next submitted that no doubt the appeal was filed on 22-8-2022, but thereafter the appellant left the appeal unattended on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that he has appeared in this case based on no-objection as it appears that the learned lawyers, who were appearing for the appellant earlier, did not take interest in the case. Learned Spl. PP further submits that even the informant has supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 4.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Spl. PP and the fact that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued way back in March, 2022, the court is not inclined to entertain the appeal.

5.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T