Patna High CourtCR. MISC./323/2016rejected

Satyendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2016-02-16Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.323 of 2016 (3) dt.16-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.323 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA PS DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Satyendra Kumar S/o - Jiyalal Prasad Resident of Village - Nandpur, Delho, P.S. - Muffasil Motihari, District - East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisuzzoha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuradha Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 16-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

On 18.09.2015 Husna Ara Khatoon @ Husni aged about 14 years filed written report alleging inter-alia that in the preceding night while she came out from her house meet natures call, two persons came over motorcycles who were identified as Satyendra Kumar (petitioner) and Ravindra Das, who lifted her, taken to Usha Healthcare Centre, Batrolia Bazar and then committed rape one by one.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the following day victim was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she had supported the case of rape having been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.323 of 2016 (3) dt.16-02-2016 committed by two persons after lifting her but failed to identify petitioner alongwith Ravindra Das to be her assailant. That being so, in the background of conflicting version petitioner is entitled for bail.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer.

From the allegation, it is evident that the petitioner alongwith Ravindra Das, happens to be an assailant has properly been identified which, though during course of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been erased. However, the occurrence is found supported by the victim herself during course of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, for the present prayer of bail is rejected. However petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer after examination of the victim.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) siddharth/- U T