Anant Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66922 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2018 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Anant Kumar Ram Son of Basudeo Ram R/O Bhawanpura, P.O.- Bhawanpura, P.S. Kharik Bazar, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director Bihar ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate Mr. Roop Kishan, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP For the CBI :

Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-04-2025 Heard the parties.

2.

This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 96 of 2018 registered for the offence under sections 120-B, 201, 323, 342 & 377 of the Indian Penal Code, under sections 6, 9, 10 and 17 of the POCSO Act and under sections 75, 82 and 85 of the J.J. Act, 2015. 3.

Earlier, the bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.02.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.77992 of 2023. The order dated 29.02.2024 reads as under:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66922 of 2024(8) dt.11-04-2025 2/3 "

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the CBI and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 96 of 2018 registered for the offence under Section 120-B, 201, 323, 342, 377 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 6, 9, 10 and 17 of the POCSO Act and under Section 75, 82 and 85 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was working in a children home where the mentally and physically disabled children used to live and the allegation against the petitioner is that he does not forward the complaints of the victim children to the higher authorities.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the main accused in this case is one Parwej Das.

5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in jail since 5.8.2023.

6. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail by contending that petitioner may not be granted bail by this Court as he is involved in the abuse of minor children who are physically

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66922 of 2024(8) dt.11-04-2025 3/3 and mentally disabled.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

9. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest. If there is no sufficient progress in the trial due to the fault of the prosecution side then the petitioner may renew his prayer for grant of bail."

4.

Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. submits that in this case, the trial is going and he assures this Court that the trial shall be concluded at the earliest.

5.

Considering the seriousness of the allegation and also the fact that the trial is continuing, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. If the C.B.I. does not produce the witnesses on the dates fixed in the trial, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T