Hon'ble Single Judge rejected the petition for regular bail sought by the petitioner in an FIR involving rape and offences under POCSO Act against a minor. The Court relied on the victim's statement and the serious nature of allegations.
Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
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.41148 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur
======================================================
MUKESH KUMAR PANDIT S/O ARUN KUMAR PANDIT R/o villageGohi, P.S.- Warisnagar, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, A.P.P. ======================================================
... ... Opposite Party/s
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
4 25-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
The allegation, as per the First Information Report, is that the petitioner committed rape upon the minor daughter of the informant and when the victim objected, she was threatened and on the pretext of solemnizing marriage, the petitioner continued to establish physical relationship with the minor daughter of the informant, due to which, she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41148 of 2021(4) dt.25-04-2022 2/3
developed pregnancy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neighbour of the informant and there was cordial relationship between the two families and the girl used to come in the house of the petitioner. He further submits that there is delay in lodging of First Information Report for about five months inasmuch as the first occurrence had allegedly taken place on 30.01.2020, but no information was given to the Police.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. submits that the girl has supported the prosecution story and with regard to delay in lodging the First Information Report his submission is that sufficient explanation for delay is mentioned in the First Information Report. He further submits that since the girl is minor, therefore, there is no question of consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl.
Regards being had to the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., the fact that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41148 of 2021(4) dt.25-04-2022 3/3
girl is minor and there is direct allegation against the petitioner of sexual assault, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail can be granted in a rape case involving a minor where the victim supports the prosecution statement and no convincing explanation for delay in lodging FIR is provided.
Whether the relationship between the petitioner and the informant's daughter justifies granting bail despite allegations of sexual assault.
Mukesh Kumar Pandit
The State of Bihar
Anil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
