Lalit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54353 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2024 Thana- TARABARI District- Araria ====================================================== Lalit Yadav, Son of Shyam Yadav @ Shobha Yadav, Resident of VillageMatnaza Sharanpur, Ward No. 03, P.S.- Tarabari, Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. M. K. Nirala, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-09-2024 Heard Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The informant appears suo motu through Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Tarabari P.S. Case No.43 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegedly while the informant was sleeping in her house, the petitioner after finding her alone, after breaking the lock of the door entered in the room and forcibly committed rape.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that from the F.I.R., it would be evident that the alleged occurrence took place on 31.03.2024, but surprisingly the present F.I.R. has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54353 of 2024(3) dt.25-09-2024 2/3 been instituted on 04.04.2024. The medical report also does not corroborate the allegation of fresh sexual assault. It is also contended that during the course of investigation, statement of the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the informant was recorded, who categorically stated that her house is just in front of the house of the informant, but in the fateful night, i.e. on 31.03.2024, she has not heard any hulla. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is enmity between both the family, which resulted into lodging of the present F.I.R. and now the petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2024.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State and the informant vehemently opposes the bail application and submit that the informant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that it is the petitioner, who committed the alleged crime of rape upon her. The statement of the victim was also corroborated by her family members, as is evident from paragraph nos. 25 and 26 of the case diary. Learned Advocate for the informant further contended that during the course of investigation, the lock of the room was found broken, which also support the case of the prosecution.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54353 of 2024(3) dt.25-09-2024 3/3 behalf of the parties and considering the specific nature of accusation, supported by other witnesses, this Court is not acceded to the prayer of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T