Dismissed

Upendra Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Oct 2022CR. MISC./7283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a bail petition challenging a charge of rape on a 14-year-old girl under POCSO. The High Court rejected the bail application due to the specific corroboration of the victim's statement with the medical report and the nature of the offence. The court directed the trial to conclude within the statutory time limit.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for bail was rejected. The court directed the trial court to proceed day-to-day and ensure trial concludes within the time limit under the POCSO Act.

Upendra 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.7283 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2021 Thana- ARWAL MAHILA District- Jehanabad

¶3

====================================================== UPENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI GULABCHAND CHAUDHARY, R/VSAMANPURA BADDHO, P.O.- EBRAHIMPUR, P.S.- KINJAR, DISTT.ARWAL

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 11-10-2022

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶11

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶12

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 45 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 376(D)(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

¶13

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 04.07.2021.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is to commit rape upon informant/victim, aged about 14 years, along with other co-accused persons.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7283 of 2022(3) dt.11-10-2022 2/3

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, due to local disputes and differences. It is also submitted that the present FIR was lodged after two days without any just explanation for said delay. It is also submitted that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, as regard to “white material found on ' Salwar ' of the victim” negate the allegation of rape, as no spermatozoa was found. It is also submitted that spermatozoa was also not noticed during medical examination of victim and as such, allegation of rape does not get its strength. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case has been completed, for which, charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶17

Learned APP, while opposing the prayer of bail, submitted that victim specifically alleged this petitioner to commit rape upon her along with other co-accused persons through her statement, as recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. It is further pointed out that on medical examination, fresh marks of tooth-bite on left cheek of the victim was also noticed. Learned APP further submitted that as per medical report, marks of scratch were found, which clearly shows the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7283 of 2022(3) dt.11-10-2022 3/3

¶19

physical resistance from victim side.

¶20

In view of the submissions, as made above, as victim

¶21

specifically alleged this petitioner to commit rape upon her along with other co-accused persons through her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which is in full corroboration with medical report, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at present.

¶22

Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

¶23

Trial Court/Special Court is directed to proceed with the matter, by taking it on board, on day-to-day basis, so as trial may conclude within specified time as prescribed under Section 35 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶24

Superintendent of Police, Arwal, is directed to produced the charge-sheeted witnesses, as and when directed by the learned Trial Court/Special Court, for expeditious disposal of trial, within specified time, as provided under law, as mentioned above.

¶25

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶26

S.Katyayan/-

¶27

U T

Upendra Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra 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

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ratan Chowdhary @ Ratan Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Avinash Mishra @ Abinash Kumar Mishra @ Amar Parashar @ Dilkhush Vs The State of Bihar

Bikram Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Munna Hansda Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Das Vs The State of Bihar