The High Court of Patna, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, rejected a bail petition filed by Manish Kumar in an alleged rape case under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 4 POSCO Act, refusing to extend relief due to the grave nature of allegations and supporting medical evidence.
Prayer for bail rejected. Petitioner denied bail.
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.5878 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -299 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- BHOJPUR
====================================================== Manish Kumar @ Bhuara, Son of Ram Prasad Ram, Resident of Villlage:Barki Tenduni, P.S:- Aayar, District:-Bhojpur, (Arrah).
.... .... Petitioner
The State of Bihar.
Versus .... .... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Lallan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER
3 12-04-2017 Heard.
The petitioner is in custody in connection with Mahila P.S.Case No.299 of 2016 pending in the Court of ADJ-Ist, Arrah registered for an offence under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POSCO Act.
The informant of this case is mother of the victim. In her fardbeyan given before SHO of Mahila police station in the campus of Sadar hospital she has stated that on 31.08.2016 when her minor daughter was playing this petitioner, took her to the dilapidated abandoned house of Dularchand and committed rape on her.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties are neighbours and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5878 of 2017 (3) dt.12-04-2017
2/2
present case on account of local politics. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the doctor has also not found any dead or alive spermatozoa in the private part of the victim.
However, learned APP opposes the submissions by submitting that the informant was found serious and on query she disclosed about the manner of occurrence by stating that this petitioner lifted and took her to a dilapidated house of Dularchand and after removing her pant, committed rape on her. The doctor also examined the victim and found blood. The Investigating Officer seized blood stained pant of the victim. The witnesses noticed blood at the place of occurrence as well as her private part and under garment. In her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. the victim has also supported the manner of rape committed by this petitioner. The victim was sent to Sadar hospital for her treatment.
Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant him bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
B.Kr./-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a rape case involving serious allegations with medical evidence supporting the occurrence.
Whether the absence of eyewitness and spermatozoa conclusion justifies granting bail given the corroborative medical evidence of blood stains.
Whether the prayer for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (implied context) should be allowed in a high-profile sexual offence case against a minor child.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manish Kumar @ Bhuara
The State of Bihar
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
