Partly allowed

Dhiraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC26 Jul 2022CR. MISC./22730/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a bail application in a POCSO case involving allegations of kidnapping. While noting the trial was advanced and the victim fought allegations, the court declined bail due to the nature of the offense. It directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded within three months.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22730 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2020 Thana- MEDNI CHAUKI District- Lakhisarai

¶3

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

¶4

Dhiraj Kumar S/o Arjun Mahto R/o village- Devghara Chandra Tola, P.S.Mednichuki, District- Lakhisarai

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 26-07-2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mednichouki P.S. Case No. 17 of 2020 lodged under Sections 448, 341, 342, 323, 366(A), 354, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is to kidnap the daughter of the informant and brought to his house. She was also recovered from the house of the petitioner in unconscious stage, thereafter this case has been lodged. The age of the victim as per the F.I.R. is 13 years.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial in this case has advanced. The statement of the alleged victim has taken place under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she has

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22730 of 2022(2) dt.26-07-2022 2/3

¶17

denied the allegation made in the F.I.R. It has also been submitted that till date all prosecution witnesses are not supporting the case of the prosecution and there is likelihood of closing of the prosecution case in few months since evidence are not coming against the present petitioner, therefore, he may be granted bail. He is in custody since 28.11.2022.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State submits that since trial has at advance stage and at least on two occasions the accuse shall have to physically appeared that is at the stage of 313 as well as on the day of judgment and, therefore, a direction may be given to conclude the trial at the earliest.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made above by the parties and considering this aspect that the petitioner is accused in POCSO. I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner, therefore bail is rejected. But hereby directed to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within 3 months.

¶20

With the aforesaid direction, the application for bail is

¶21

rejected.

¶22

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶23

guddu/-

¶24

U T

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22730 of 2022(2) dt.26-07-2022 3/3

Dhiraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Kumar 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

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramraj Bin Vs The State of Bihar

Rajendra Prasad Sahu @ Rajendra Prasad Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Brahmdev Rana @ Brma Deo Rana @ Bambam Rana @ Bam Da Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Pravesh Rai @ Ram Pravesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Abdul Hasan Ansari @ Abdul Hasan Vs The State of Bihar