Rahul Sapera v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36558 of 2017 (2) dt.19-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36558 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -22 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHILA PS District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Rahul Sapera Son of Late Bineshwar Sapera, R/o Village- Sipara Balbapar, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Madhuri Lata ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 09.04.2017 in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 22 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 376, 511 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution case, as lodged by the victim girl, Sangita Kumari is that while in the after noon, she has gone outside the house for natural call, the petitioner came from behind and dragged her in a field and tried to outrage her modesty. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal antecedent and no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36558 of 2017 (2) dt.19-08-2017 overt act has been committed by him. He submits that a joint compromise petition has been filed before the learned court below of cordial relationship and the doctor has opined the age of the victim girl as 17-18 years as such, POCSO Act will not apply and the doctor has also opined that the informant is 3 1⁄2 months pregnant. He submits that petitioner is a dancer and because he was working with the informant's family, and he was not given any remuneration and on asking, such false case has been lodged against him. It is further stated that charge-sheet has already been submitted hence, there is no allegation of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge-I, Jehanabad, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 22 of 2017.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) sushma/- U T