Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49342/2023rejected

Vinod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-11-06Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49342 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2023 Thana- KOTHI District- Gaya ====================================================== Vinod Kumar Son Of Inar Bhuiyan @ Indar Bhuiyan Resident Of VillageShiva, Ps- Kothi, Distt- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Promad Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Kothi P.S. Case. No. 26 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Allegation against the petitioner along with one coaccused, namely, Akhilesh Kumar is that they committed rape with the informant's minor daughter one by one. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case. Medical report has not supported the prosecution case. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49342 of 2023(3) dt.06-11-2023 2/2 languishing in judicial custody since 15.03.2023. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in FIR and further the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she specifically stated that the petitioner along with one co-accused committed wrong with her. During investigation, witnesses supported the prosecution version and also the victim is minor aged about 17 years. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T