The Patna High Court dismissed the bail petition of an accused facing charges under Section 377 IPC and Section 4 POCSO. Rejecting the claim of settlement, the court noted corroborative medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, finding no ground for bail.
Application for bail dismissed; petitioner remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7025 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -520 Year- 2015 Thana -ARARIA District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Sekhu Son of Md. Azmat, Resident of Village - Azad Nagar, P.S. - Araria, District - Araria. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3. 11-04-2016 Heard Sri Radha Mohan Singh, learned counsel who was assisted by Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyendra Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The petitioner, who is in custody since 29-10-2015 in connection with Araria P.S. Case No. 520 of 2015 (corresponding to Special Case No. 20 of 2015) registered for the offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), has prayed for grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute in between the parties has already been settled and compromise petition has also been filed, whereas, learned Addl. Public
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7025 of 2016 (3) dt.11-04-2016
2/2
Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that in the F.I.R. itself, the informant, who is none else the mother of the victim boy aged about five years, is the eye-witness.
Besides hearing, I have also perused the material on record, including the case diary. The allegation has been corroborated from the medical report also. I do not find any ground to grant bail.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Anay
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused charged under Section 377 IPC and Section 4 POCSO despite a claim of settlement.
Whether the medical report and eyewitness testimony justify denial of bail in an offence against a child.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sekhu
The State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
