This order rejected the petitioner's application for regular bail in a case involving allegations of rape attempt on a 13-year-old minor, citing strong direct allegations and supported inquiry findings against releasing him on bail.
Application for regular bail rejected; trial directed to be expedited.
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.49209 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2020 Thana- MARAUNA District- Supaul
======================================================
ARJUN SAH Son of Sri Ram Sewak Sah Resident of Village - Kulhariya, Ward no.02, P.S.- Marauna, Distt.- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER
5 04-04-2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 376, 323, 341, 504, 506, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 8 of the POCSO Act and sections 3(1)(r), (s) and (w)(i) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per the prosecution case, it is stated by the informant that while his 13 year old niece had gone to collect wood, the petitioner herein made an attempt to commit rape on her. On being informed by the co-villagers, on the informant reaching there, it is stated that the petitioner leaving behind the niece of the informant, escaped.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. For an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 21.8.2020 the FIR was registered 4 days later without any explanation for the same. There is case and counter case between the parties, the FIR of counter case having been brought on record as annexure to the supplementary affidavit. Neither any injury nor bruise has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49209 of 2021(5) dt.04-04-2022 2/2
been found on the alleged victim. A number of persons on the petitioner’s side sustained injuries which would be evident from the injury reports enclosed with the supplementary affidavit. The petitioner is in custody since 16.3.2021.
The application for bail is opposed by learned Spl. PP appearing for the State who submits that not only the petitioner is named in the FIR but the allegations have been supported by the victim in her statement under sections 161 Cr.P.C as also 164 Cr.P.C
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the material that has transpired in course of investigation and the direct allegation against the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Prakash/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in a case involving rape attempt on a minor and cognizable offenses under IPC, POCSO, and SC/ST Act.
Whether the delay in registration of FIR and lack of injuries on the victim justify granting bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Arjun Sah
The State of Bihar
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
