Petitioner sought anticipatory bail for arrest under rape and POCSO charges, claiming false implication in village politics; State opposed citing direct rape allegation and section 164 victim statement naming him. Court found allegations serious and declined bail.
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.26896 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
====================================================== MD. ADIL SON OF MD MAKSOOD ALAM ALIAS MD MAKSOOD RESIDENT OF VILLAGETEHWARA, P.SKATRA, DISTMUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
5 17-01-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Muzaffarpur Mahila P.S. Case No. 37 of 2021 registered under Sections 341, 342, 376 of the I.P.C. and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dirty village politics. Further he submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is named in the first information report. There is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26896 of 2022(5) dt.17-01-2023 2/2
direct allegation of rape against the petitioner. Further he submits that in the statement of the victim, recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C., she made the same allegation as alleged in the first information report. Hence, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
shailendra/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner apprehending arrest in a rape/POCSO case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
MD. ADIL
The State of Bihar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
