Niranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65370 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2020 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== NIRANJAN KUMAR SON OF SHANKAR RAM VILLAGEMADHUBAN WARD NO. 8, PS- MADHUBAN, DIST- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 07-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 372 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 376, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act.

3. It is case of commission of rape by the petitioner with the complainant's minor daughter, aged about 15 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. The alleged date of occurrence is 28.09.2020, but complaint petition was filed on 21.10.2020 which creates doubt on the prosecution case. Good sense has been prevailed between the parties and compromise

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65370 of 2023(3) dt.07-02-2024 2/2 petition is annexed as Annexure-P/2 to this petition. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 18.07.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR upon whom there is direct allegation of rape with complainant's minor daughter. The victim girl has also supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she has specifically stated that this petitioner committed rape with her. The victim girl is minor as per her deposition. It is further submitted that witnesses of this case have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is direct allegation of committing rape against the petitioner upon the minor daughter of the complainant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T