Jainarayan Shah @ Jainarayan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52067 of 2014 (3) dt.04-03-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52067 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -329 Year- 2014 Thana -TAJPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Jainarayan Shah @ Jainarayan Prasad son of Late Bhola Shah, resident of village- Karak Marg, Ward No. 10, P.S.- Madhubani Town, DistrictMadhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyavrat Verma(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 04-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 329 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 376, 386 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioner being the father of girlfriend of the informant assaulted sexually to the informant after taking her signature on blank paper and when the informant performed court marriage with Harendra Kumar Sharma, the petitioner came and caused threats that he will not leave her. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner runs a Kirana shop in Madhubani Town, the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52067 of 2014 (3) dt.04-03-2015 had three daughters and two sons and is leading happy married life. As a matter of fact the informant took money from the daughter of the petitioner and when the petitioner asked his daughter to return that money, then this false case has been lodged. The informant has executed a document on affidavit regarding taking loan from the petitioner, and as such, the petitioner aged about 60 years having no criminal antecedent deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes.

Considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner to be serious in nature, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial in view of amended proviso of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.

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