Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58218/2023rejected

Siyaram Singh @ Siyaram Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-19Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58218 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-498 Year-2018 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Siyaram Singh @ Siyaram Sharma Son Of Late Ramdhir Singh Village Sondra, Ps- Gehlaur, Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Maro Devi Wife Of Shankar Rawani R/O Vill- Sondra, Ps- Gehlaur, DistGaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-10-2023 Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 498 of 2018, dated 31.03.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner with the intention to commit rape of the daughter of the complainant entered into the house of the complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of the daughter of the complainant and on hulla he anyhow managed to escape.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58218 of 2023(3) dt.19-10-2023 2/2 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the complaint petition is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint petition.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the complaint petition and S.A. of the complainant it appears that the petitioner has committed wrong with the daughter of the complainant and the age of the daughter of the complainant was 15 years at the time of the occurrence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 498 of 2018 pending in the court of Exclusive Special Judge POCSO-cumAdditional Sessions Judge-VII, Gaya.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T