This order rejects a bail application by an accused in a gang rape case. The court held that no case for bail is made out, noting that injury on the victim is not essential as per precedent. The application was rejected despite the trial court's delay.
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.12555 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2020 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas
======================================================
Ekbal Kuraishi S/o - Ashlam Kuraishi @ Aslam Quraisi R/o VillageKhurmabad, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas (Sasaram)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinod Kumar Seth, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR ORAL ORDER
2 29-09-2022
The applicant/accused in Crime No. 32 of 2020
registered with Chenari Police Station, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2021, for the offence punishable under Section 376(D) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by this application is seeking his release on bail during pendency of the trial.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused.
The applicant who is accused in case of gang rape is moving this application for releasing him on bail after rejection of his earlier bail application vide order dated 30.01.2021.
The learned counsel for the applicant argues that despite direction to expedite the trial and to conclude it within
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12555 of 2022(2) dt.29-09-2022 2/2
a period of nine months, except examination of three witnesses, the learned Trial Court has not done anything in the matter. He submits that though it is alleged that there was forceful sexual intercourse, the victim had not suffered any injury. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears for the State.
The case in hand is a case of gang rape on the victim of the crime in question. It is seen that the applicant has placed on record copies of deposition of prosecution witnesses. Those are supporting the case of prosecution.
In the matter of B.C.Deva vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 12 SCC 122, the Apex Court has stated that finding of injury on the person of the prosecutrix is not essential in the case of sexual offence against a women.
Considering the fact that the case is that of a gang rape on the victim female, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
(A. M. Badar, J)
Mkr./saurabhkrsi nha/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a gang rape case where the trial court has not expedited the trial despite directions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.C. Deva vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶22
(2007) 12 SCC 122 · Who else cites this
Ekbal Kuraishi
A. M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
