Munna Sonar @ Manna Prasad Sonar @ Munna Kumar Sonar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48630 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -274 Year- 2015 Thana -KATIHAR District- KATIHAR ====================================================== Munna Sonar @ Manna Prasad Sonar @ Munna Kumar Sonar Son of late Rameshwar Sonar Resident of Mohalla- Lal Kothi Road, Mohan Dhar, Police Station - Katihar, District Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md.Sufiyan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 27-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Katihar (T) P.S. Case No. 274 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly the petitioner committed penetratiing sexual assault with Subodh Kumar, aged 11 years, the minor son of the informant and further prepared video and circulated the same to other persons.

Submission is of false implication, the petitioner is illiterate person, no mobile or video has been recovered during investigation, no offence as alleged is made out against the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48630 of 2015 (3) dt.27-01-2016 2/2 petitioner and medical evidence does not support the prosecution version and, as such, the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 09.05.2015, deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the learned A.P.P. seriously opposes by submitting that the victim in his statement has also supported the allegation. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, such prayer stands rejected. Considering the detention of the petitioner, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months.

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