The Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's bail plea in a case of kidnapping of a minor under IPC Sections 366(A), 376 and POCSO, citing the gravity of the offences. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected; direction is issued to the trial court to expedite the trial.
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.1965 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2021 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas
====================================================== AJAJ AALAM SON OF LATE IMAMUDDIN @ IMAMUDDIN NAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHARANDUA, POLICE STATIONCHENARI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM . ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .. ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Raghunand Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER
3 19-07-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 366(A), 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
The minor daughter of the informant is said to have been kidnapped by the petitioner and his associates.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the victim girl has been recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which she has not uttered even a single word against the petitioner. He further submits that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 23.10.2021, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 28.10.2021 that too after lapse of five days without explaining the plausible delay. He further submits that apart from that the medical report of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1965 of 2022(3) dt.19-07-2022 2/2
victim does not support the allegation leveled against the petitioner as the doctor does not found any internal or external injury on the person of the victim. Therefore, no case under Section 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 18.11.2021.
On the other hand learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the minor daughter of the informant is subjected to physical assault by the petitioner and the victim herself in her statement has supported the prosecution version. He further submits that charges in this case has been framed against the petitioner and the trial has proceeded. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
braj/- U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for bail of the petitioner charged with offences under IPC Sections 366(A), 376, 34 and POCSO Section 4/6 be allowed considering the gravity of the offence and delay in lodging FIR.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial.
Ajaj Alam
State of Bihar
Rajesh Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
