Ramesh Baitha @ Ramesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80578 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2023 Thana- CHUTIA SAHAYAK District- Rohtas ====================================================== Ramesh Baitha @ Ramesh Kumar Son of Raju Baitha Resident of VillageLadi, P.O. and P.S.- Chainpur, District- Palamu (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Patna 2.

Suresh Yadav son of late Basdeo Yadav , village- Chutiya Tola Lambar Dai, P.S- Chutiya , Dist- Rohtas.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the minor daughter of the informant was being kidnapped by the petitioner and one another.

4. During the Court of investigation, the victim was recovered and her statement under sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she has specifically stated that the petitioner and one co-accused, namely, Govinda have repeatedly

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80578 of 2024(4) dt.07-04-2025 2/2 raped her and in medical examination, it has also come that the intercourse has been performed with her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 12.01.2024 having no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the material available in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail at this stage which is accordingly, rejected.

8. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U T