The High Court rejected a bail application for accused in a POCSO case involving a 13-year-old girl, refusing bail upfront but directing the trial court to state reasons for trial inaction within nine months.
Bail prayed for rejected. Trial Court directed to state reasons for lack of progress within nine months.
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.14045 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2020 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
====================================================== 1. Dilip Rai, Son of Prayag Rai 2. Vinay Rai, Son of Sudish Rai Both are resident of Village- Manupur, Police Station- Dighwara, DistrictSaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2021 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, the learned
Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma,
the learned counsel for the informant. The State is represented by the learned APP.
The petitioners seek bail in connection with Dighwara P.S. Case No. 72 of 2020, dated 13.03.2020, instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 376(D)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14045 of 2021(2) dt.07-07-2021 2/3
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the earlier occasion, the prayer for bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25987 of 2020. It has also been urged that this Court did not take into account that the date of the F.I.R. is prior to the date of the occurrence and the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that they are in custody since 14.03.2020 and after the framing of charges, there has been no further progress in the trial.
However, looking at the accusation in the F.I.R. against the petitioners of having ravished a thirteen year old girl when she had gone to attend the call of nature, I am not inclined to grant bail to them.
The prayer for grant of bail of the petitioners is, accordingly, rejected.
However, taking the period of custody of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14045 of 2021(2) dt.07-07-2021 3/3
petitioners into account, it is directed that if there is no substantial progress in the trial in the next nine months, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Trial Court for grant of bail and in that event, the Trial Court would be required to state reasons for non-conclusion of the trial within the aforesaid period.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the application stands dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl under Sections 376(D) read with 341, 323 IPC and Sections 4/6 POCSO Act.
Whether the period of custody before proceeding with bail application should be considered by the trial court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
DILIP RAI AND ANR.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
