Jitu Sao v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7420 of 2017 (3) dt.06-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7420 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -32 Year- 2016 Thana -RANIYATALAB District- PATNA ====================================================== Jitu Sao, Son of Ram Vinay Sao, resident of village - Patut, P.S. Vikram, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Amrendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rani Talab P.S. Case No. 32 of 2016 (Special Case No. 42 of 2016) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 6, 8 and 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. The daughter of the informant had gone to attend the call of nature but she did not return, thereafter, the dead body of Keshari Kumari, the daughter of the informant, was found lying in Raghopur Bhaghar near shesham tree. It is alleged that she has been raped and killed. The petitioner is not named in the first information report and his name transpired on the basis of call details of mobile phone of the petitioner as well as of the father of the deceased which was being used by family members, thereafter, the petitioner was apprehended and he confessed his guilt.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7420 of 2017 (3) dt.06-04-2017 Submission is of false implication and that in this case other co-accused Anil Mahto and Bikash Kumar Mochi have already been allowed bail by different Benches of this Court and as such the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration as he is suffering in custody since 01.04.2016.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that during investigation name of the petitioner has transpired. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the materials collected during investigation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T