Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2989/2024bail rejected

Md. Shahnawaz Ansari @ Sahnawaz Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-31Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2989 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2023 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== Md. Shahnawaz Ansari @ Sahnawaz Ansari S/O Rahmat Ansari Resident Of Village Barajor, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 31-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 28 of 2023 (arising out of Jhajha P.S. Case No. 189 of 2023) lodged under Sections 342, 377, 504 and 34 of the I.P.C. read with 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against two named accused persons including the petitioner against whom allegation of POCSO has been made.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that it is absolute false and false case in which basically petitioner is a victim. He submits that charge has already been framed, trial commenced and evidence of victim as well as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2989 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 2/2 informant has been made and it has been found that both witnesses have not supported in the prosecution case.

5. Counsel further submits that since charge has been framed then keeping the accused in custody shall not solve any purpose.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is accused in POCSO case whose procedure is different as that of Cr.P.C..

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, 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 one year after cognizance if trial shall not be concluded within the said period. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T