Manoj Chouhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51969 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -650 Year- 2014 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Manoj Chouhan S/o Late Shiv Tahal Chouhan Resident of villageLembua, P.S.- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.A.Khan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 15-12-2015 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dayal, APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 650 of 2014 registered under sections 366(A) and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

While the victim was at the Daltenganj Railway Station, it is alleged that the petitioner along with his wife and sister, by committing fraud, took her to Sasaram where she was confined and was subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner on repeated occasions. The girl was examined medically by the doctor who found her minor. The statement of the girl was recorded in which she supported the allegation.

Contention of the petitioner is that it does not stand to reason that the petitioner would commit such offence with the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51969 of 2015 (2) dt.15-12-2015 2/2 connivance of his wife and sister. The age of the victim ascertained can be doubted as the Medical Board found her between 16-17 years of age. Petitioner is in custody since 23.4.2014.

Mr. Dayal, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and placed the impugned order which records reasons for refusal of bail. Considering the allegation and other materials available on record, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner is rejected. Since, the petitioner is in custody for more than 18 months, this Court grants the petitioner liberty to renew prayer for bail if the trial does not record adequate progress in the Court below itself within eight months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T