Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29474/2015rejected

Rajeev Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-29Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29474 of 2015 (3) dt.29-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29474 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -56 Year- 2014 Thana -CHARIABARIYARPUR DistrictBEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Rajeev Sahni Son of Deepak Sahni resident of village- Khanjhapur, P.S.- Cheriya Bariarpur, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Das(Spl.App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 29-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cheriya Bariarpur P.S. Case No. 56 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i) (xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Allegedly, the petitioner after entering into the house of the informant and finding her alone committed rape forcibly with her and on alarm being raised the witnesses came there, then the petitioner fled away.

Submission is of false implication and that the doctor has found no sign of rape and the petitioner is suffering in custody

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29474 of 2015 (3) dt.29-10-2015 since 23.03.2014 and up till now two witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the allegation and further other witnesses have also supported the allegation which is evident from the impugned order itself.

In the facts and circumstances stated above and considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as per the amended proviso of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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