Allowed

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Goswami v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Aug 2022CR. MISC./10983/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the petitioner in a case involving acts under IPC Sections 354(d) and 376(d), POCSO, and SC/ST Act. The grant is based on the victim's denial of allegations in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, corroborated by the medical report and completed investigation. Bail is granted on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount to Special Judge, POCSO-cum-Additional District Judge, Gaya, subject to Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Goswami Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10983 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2021 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Goswami Son of Surendar Goswami @ Sulendra @ Karu Goaswami Resident of Village - Sitalpur Rupin, P.S.- Fatehpur, Distt.Gaya.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 17-08-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶11

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶12

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 354(d) and 376(d) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)v of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶13

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 23.02.2021.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is to commit

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10983 of 2022(3) dt.17-08-2022 2/3

¶16

rape/penetrative sexual assault upon herself and upon her friend.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the statement of the victim as recorded u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. appears contradictory by denying the allegation of rape, while recording her statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that it is not a case of gang rape, rather it is a case of individual friendship/love affairs, where petitioner and victim were known to each other prior to this occurrence. It is also submitted that as video has been made viral by some other persons, the present false case has been lodged implicating this petitioner. It is further submitted that, as per medical report, the victim appears to be major in the background, as no age of the victim/informant is mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that medical report denying the allegation of penetrative sexual assault, which is in corroboration with the statement of victim recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and, moreover, investigation in this case is complete for which chargesheet has been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶18

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer of bail, fairly conceded that victim denied

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10983 of 2022(3) dt.17-08-2022 3/3

¶20

the allegation of rape/penetrative sexual assault against this petitioner through her statement recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

In view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, as the statement of victim recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. denied the allegation of rape against this petitioner, which is further in corroboration with the medical report coupled with the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, let the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2021 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, POCSO-cum-Additional District JudgeVI, Gaya/concerned Court, subject to the conditions as laid down u/s 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶23

Ankit/-

¶24

U T

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Goswami v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Goswami v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malhar Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Babu Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Shubham Kumar Chaudhary @ Shubham Chaudhary @ Shubham Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Tabraiz Khan @ Shahil Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Kumar @ Munna Kumar Thakur @ Munna Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Makeshwar Das @ Makeshawar Das Vs The State of Bihar