Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54821/2023rejected

Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-11-08Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54821 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2023 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== ROHIT KUMAR S/O SHARDA PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DILIYAN, PS- TARARI, DIST- BHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 08-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code but later on added Sections 366, 363, 376 of the IPC and Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of abducting and committing rape upon the sister of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that there is out and out love affair between the petitioner and the victim. There has been delay of nine days in lodging the FIR. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.01.2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54821 of 2023(3) dt.08-11-2023 2/2

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation against the petitioner. He further submitted that the victim is a minor girl and has been recovered. The statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which she stated that this petitioner took her away forcibly in his relative's house and committed rape without her consent, which corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. 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.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

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