Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70340 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2022 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger ====================================================== RAVI KUMAR S/O Anil Shah @ Anil Kumar R/O Village- Gate No-6 Chhoti Keshopur, P.S- Jamalpur, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Kamal Nayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 23-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Dharahra P.S. Case No. 163 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 366(A), 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, the informant alleged that her daughter, aged about 14 years was kidnapped by the petitioner on 31.8.2022, when she went for study. The allegation of rape has also been made against the petitioner after recovery of victim.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. A statement has been made in para-3 of the petition that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70340 of 2022(3) dt.23-03-2023 2/2 petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 8.9.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the victim has made direct allegation of rape against the petitioner in her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein, she stated that the petitioner called her and also threatened her if she does not come, he will kill his brother and a result of that she went with him to Jamalpur where the petitioner kept the victim in a rented house and committed rape with her forcefully. It is further submitted that the victim is minor, aged about 14 years, who also supported the prosecution version.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

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

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