Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67923/2024bail rejected

Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-01Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67923 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2023 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Son of Mahendra Sah @ Mahendra Prasad Resident of village - Mahadeva, Police Station - Laukhi, Dist- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Hidden Daughter of Mangal Sah Village- Nirmali, PS- Nirmali, Dist- Supaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-10-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No.117 of 2023, arising out of Nirmali P.S. Case No.278 of 2023, lodged on 14.12.2023, under Sections 366/366A/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has kidnapped and raped the minor girl, who is alleged to be his student.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67923 of 2024(2) dt.01-10-2024 2/2 that from the FIR it transpires that it has been filed after a gap of 11 months. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.12.2023 having no criminal antecedent. Counsel has specifically mentioned that in the rejection order the date of custody has wrongly been mentioned as 26.06.2024 but the actual date is 24.12.2023. Counsel submits that charge has already been framed and trial is going on.

5. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the POCSO Act has been added in the present FIR. Charge has also been framed under the POCSO Act.

6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may renew the prayer for bail one year after the date of cognizance.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Mkr./- U T