Dismissed¶21

Rakesh Rai v. The State of Bihar

Bail – regular bail

Patna HC27 Mar 2024CR. MISC./12448/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Crl. Misc. No.12448 of 2024, decided 27-03-2024 by Partha Sarthy, J.; regular bail rejected; Jalalpur PS Case 64/2018, District Saran; offences under sections 366, 494, 34 IPC; victim's s.164 CrPC statement alleging rape; FIR delay of about 35 days (occurrence 11.3.2018, report 15.4.2018); petitioner absconded nearly 5 years, arrested/custody 17.10.2023; charge-sheet filed; co-accused Aarti Devi bailed 2.7.2018 in Cr. Misc. 37700/2018; Rs.40,000/- cash allegedly taken with the wife; trial court directed to expedite trial; State represented by APP Parmanand Prasad; petitioner by advocate Avnish Kumar Singh.

What did the court decide?

No bail; sole operative direction is to the learned trial court to expedite the trial. ¶21

Rakesh Rai Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail; sole operative direction is to the learned trial court to expedite the trial.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrayed in Jalalpur P.S. Case no. 64 of 2018 under sections 366, 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶13

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material transpired in course of investigation including the victim's s.164 Cr.P.C. statement making allegations of rape against the petitioner, together with his having absconded for nearly 5 years before being taken into custody on 17.10.2023, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The application for bail was rejected.

¶21

Key takeaways

The learned trial court was directed to expedite the trial.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - regular bail - rejected (Patna High Court, Partha Sarthy, J., 27-03-2024). Application in CR. MISC. No.12448 of 2024 arising out of Jalalpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2018 (District Saran) registered under sections 366, 494 and 34 IPC. Prosecution case: the informant's wife was taken away, along with Rs.40,000/- in cash, by Baharan Rai with the assistance of Aarti Devi for the purpose of marriage. Petitioner contended he was not named in the FIR; the occurrence of 11.3.2018 was reported only on 15.4.2018 (delay of about 35 days); the victim's statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. implicating him was made to save the FIR-named accused; he was in custody since 17.10.2023 with no criminal antecedent and the charge-sheet stood submitted; co-accused Aarti Devi had been enlarged on bail on 2.7.2018 in Cr. Misc. No. 37700 of 2018. The Court, considering the FIR allegations, the investigation material including the victim's s.164 statement alleging rape against the petitioner, and his having absconded for nearly 5 years before custody on 17.10.2023, declined bail and rejected the application, while directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12448 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2018 Thana- JALALPUR District- Saran

¶3

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

¶4

Rakesh Rai, Son of Vimal Rai, Resident of Village-Chausa, P.S.-Panapur, District-Saran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avnish Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 27-03-2024

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶13

grant of regular bail in connection with Jalalpur P.S. Case no. 64 of 2018 registered under sections 366, 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, it is stated by the informant that Aarti Devi and Baharan Rai who had come and stayed at the house of the informant, took away his wife as also Rs.40,000/- in cash. The informant is convinced that Baharan Rai has taken away his wife with the assistance of Aarti Devi for the purpose of marriage.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He was falsely implicated in

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12448 of 2024(3) dt.27-03-2024 2/3

¶17

the case in course of investigation. The alleged occurrence having taken place on 11.3.2018, the matter was reported to the police only on 15.4.2018 and the FIR was registered after a delay of about 35 days. It was the victim who was having an affair with the FIR named accused namely Baharan Rai and it is just to save the said accused that the petitioner has been falsely implication in the case by the victim in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2023. He has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. It is lastly submitted that the FIR named accused Aarti Devi has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 2.7.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 37700 of 2018.

¶18

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material that has transpired against the petitioner in course of investigation including the statement of victim recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she has made allegations of rape against this petitioner together with the petitioner having absconded for nearly 5 years before he was taken into custody on 17.10.2023, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12448 of 2024(3) dt.27-03-2024 3/3

¶21

on bail and the application is rejected.

¶22

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶23

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶24

avinash/-

¶25

U T

Rakesh Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Arbind Yadav @ Mina Vs the State of Bihar

Binod Kumar Ray @ Bikki @ Binod Kumar @ Vickky Vs the State of Bihar

Saif Ali Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Rambilash Sada Vs the State of Bihar

Monu Kumar @ Babalu Kumar @ Babloo Kumar @ Mono Kumar Vs The State of Bihar