Israjul Haque @ Md. Serajul Hak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68087 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2024 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Israjul Haque @ Md. Serajul Hak Son of Late Khobari Mian Village- Bairiya Tola Haraj, PS- Shikarganj, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Asmin Khatoon Wife of Shekh Mustaffa resident of village- Bairiya Tola Haraj, Ps- Sikarganj, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, 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 Chiraiya (Sikarganj) P.S. Case No. 81 of 2024, lodged on 25.02.2024, under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the mother of the informant has alleged that the accused persons had tried to outrage the modesty and attempted to rape on her 5 to 6 years old girl. When the child returned to her home, she disclosed the incident to her mother then the informant reached there to inquire from the accused then he started abusing and threatened to kidnap her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68087 of 2024(2) dt.01-10-2024 2/2 child.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is 50 per cent disabled and the antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He is in custody since 26.02.2024. Counsel submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence.

5. Upon the specific query of the Court that what is the nature of disability, he is not in a position to explain. On further query of the Court that why the informant had disclosed your name in the FIR. There is no plausible explanation.

6. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order the statement of the victim, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been taken in which the victim has supported the allegation made in the FIR.

7. 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.

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