Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68518 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Suraj Kumar, Son Of Harkhu Sahni @ Bhikhari Sahni Resident Of Village - Bedaulia, P.S.- Mushahari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Bipin Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 376(D), 509, 506, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67 of the I. T. Act, Section 4/ 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(r)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.04.2021, he is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant alleges that while on 07.04.2021 at about 11.30 P.M., she had gone to ease herself when the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68518 of 2021(3) dt.26-04-2022 2/2 along with Jyoti Kumar kidnapped her and took her to a desolated place and they committed rape in turn and Jyoti Kumar also videographed the occurrence. It is further alleged that the video was made viral.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case on account of previous enmity. It is submitted that petitioner is a co-villager.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and submits that there is a direct allegation of rape against this petitioner and Jyoti Kumar and even the informant in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has also supported the prosecution case.

Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected for the present.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T