The High Court rejected a bail application filed by the petitioner in a POCSO case involving rape allegations and offences under the SC/ST Act, citing the severity of charges, medical evidence, and the petitioner's criminal antecedents.
Bail prayer refused.
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.11275 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar Son of Kamaldeo Yadav Resident of Village - Parsauna, P.s.Barabar Paryatak, Distt.- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER
3 28-07-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act.
According to prosecution case, as per the written petition of the informant-cum-maternal grand mother of the victim in short is that on 18.11.2021 she had gone to Sonepur Mela for taking bath in the river Ganga and the victim aged about 13 years and husband of the informant were in the house. It is further alleged that in the night of 19.11.2021 a ‘Barat” had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11275 of 2022(3) dt.28-07-2022 2/3
arrived in the house of her neighbor and the victim went to see ‘Barat’ at about 7 p.m. It is further alleged that the husband of the informant hears less and the victim knocked the door several times but the door was not opened and the victim was trying to open the door in the meantime petitioner Jitendra Kumar came there and caught the victim from behind and tied her mouth with ‘Gamcha’ and took her in bush (Dewash) behind the house and committed rape forcibly. It is further alleged that when it became late in the night and the victim had not returned then her maternal grand father went to search her and the victim returned home about 11 p.m. and remained in the house. It is further alleged that on 21.11.2021 when the informant returned home then the victim narrated her the story and the victim informed ‘Myukhiya’ Jitendra Kumar who stated the informant to do needful according to her choice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of the victim girl recorded under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11275 of 2022(3) dt.28-07-2022 3/3
Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically stated that the petitioner has committed rape upon her and medical report also confirms the same and he further submits that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 90 of 2021 arising out of Jehanabad Mahila P.S. Case no. 45 of 2021 pending in the court of learned A.S.J.-VI-cum-Special Court, POCSO, Jehanabad.
Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
mdrashid/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the petitioner, who has criminal antecedents and a POCSO case against him, has shown sufficient grounds for bail.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Jitendra Kumar
The State of Bihar
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
