Dipu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42742 of 2017 (5) dt.09-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42742 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -20 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- SHEOHAR ======================================================

1. Dipu Kumar son of Sri Ramsogarath Sah resident of village - Minapur Balaha, P.S. - Piprahi, Dist. Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Sah For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sheohar Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 201, 379, 323 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant who is herself the victim, is that while she had gone for natural call, the petitioner forcibly took her and committed rape on her and snatched her gold ornament.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 06.04.2017. He submits that no such occurrence took place and the FIR has been lodged after 10 days of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42742 of 2017 (5) dt.09-11-2017 medical report suggests her age to be 17 to 19 years and that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the for the informant submits that because there was a Panchayati to be held hence, the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. but the petitioner did not appear in the Panchayati and has also given threat. He submits that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has alleged that the petitioner committed rape on her and her age has been assessed by the Magistrate to be 15 years. Learned APP for the State also opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected in connection with Sheohar Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2016 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) sushma/- U T