Sheojee Mahto @ Shiji Prasad @ Sheo Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67213 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-450 Year-2022 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sheojee Mahto @ Shiji Prasad @ Sheo Mahto Son Of Sri Gokul Mahto R/O Village- Srinagar, P.S.- Srinagar, (Pujaha), District- West Champaran, At Present, Village- Dhanwatiya, P.S.- Jogapatti, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 20.08.2022 in connection with Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 450 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 20.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17, 4, 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w) of SC/ST Act.

According to prosecution case, in brief, is that in the day at about 1:00 P.M. when the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years went to attend the call of the nature towards South direction Sareh near the Peepal tree then in the meantime the accused-petitioner named in the F.I.R. arrived there and by taking the victim girl who is also dumb and mentally retarded in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67213 of 2022(3) dt.07-04-2023 2/3 the field of Brinjal and committed rape upon her when the informant returned home after finishing her work then the victim girl informed about the occurrence. After that when the informant inquired about the same with the accused petitioner then the accused petitioner admitted and said be did it by mistake.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and no such occurrence took place. He further submits that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is in the month of December, 2021 but the present F.I.R. has been instituted on 20.08.2021 after delay of eight months without any explanation of delay. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim girl has supported her case as alleged in the F.I.R. and in her statement which was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and 164 of Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically stated that the petitioner has committed wrong with the victim and at the time of the occurrence the victim was minor.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67213 of 2022(3) dt.07-04-2023 3/3 Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 450 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, West Champaran at Bettiah.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T