Patna High CourtCR. MISC./72267/2024bail rejected

Mantosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-03Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72267 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1611 Year-2023 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Mantosh Kumar Son of Nageshwar Ram Village- Narma, Ps- Rampurhari, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Subodh Kumar son of Ram Sajivan Thakur Village- Narma, Ps- Rampurhari OP, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 03-10-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 1611 of 2023, lodged on 30.11.2023, under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner with allegation of rape made against the informant's daughter, who is said to be minor and POCSO Act has been added.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and in custody since 30.11.2023. Counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72267 of 2024(2) dt.03-10-2024 2/2 submits that in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that rape took place, but subsequently she has changed her versions. Counsel submits that in the medical examination sexual assault has not been found and no external injury was seen. Counsel also submits that charge has already been framed.

5. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the specific allegation is against the petitioner.

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

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U T