Dismissed

Rahul Sharma @ Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Aug 2024CR. MISC./28597/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna dismissed a bail application in a special POCSO case involving abduction and alleged rape. Finding that charges were already framed and the trial commenced, the court declared itself unpersuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail, though he may renew the prayer after the victim's deposition is recorded.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; liberty to renew prayer after recording victim's and informant's depositions before the Trial Court.

Rahul Sharma @ Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28597 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2022 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Saharsa

¶3

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

¶4

Rahul Sharma @ Rahul Kumar Son of Ganesh Sharma Resident of Village Goriyari Chowk Ward No. 8, Forbesganj, District- Araria at present Nougaha Bhagkohalia P.S. Forbeshganj District-Araria

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 23-08-2024 Heard Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Dr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

The application for grant of bail to the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 54 of 2022 corresponding to Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 20 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶15

Based upon the written report, the prosecution alleges that on 08.01.2022 the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the petitioner along with other accused persons.

¶16

Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28597 of 2024(5) dt.23-08-2024 2/3

¶18

after 10 days the victim was recovered and she was dully examined by the medical board where her age has been assessed to be 17-19 years and in fact, the victim was a major. It is next contended that both the petitioner and the victim were in love however, subsequent to her recovery on the pressure being made by the parents and other family members, she has stated a different story and made allegation against the petitioner of committing illegal act upon her. It is also contended that in the investigation, it has come that the victim was taken to Kerala through different train and buses where they remained for three months and thereafter returned to the village. Had the victim forcibly been taken away and kept for three months, she would have every chance to get help from any other person in the way or where she was kept confined but that has never raised any protest. The aforesaid facts clearly suggest that she was a consenting party.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State referring to the statement of the victim vigorously contended that she made specific allegation against the petitioner that it is he, who committed rape upon her and kept confined and also assaulted her. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the documentary evidence suggests that the girl was minor at the time of alleged occurrence.

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28597 of 2024(5) dt.23-08-2024 3/3

¶21

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as also the fact that charge has already been framed and trial has already been commenced, this court is not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶22

The present petition stands rejected.

¶23

However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after recording the deposition of the victim as well as the informant before the Trial Court.

¶24

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶25

lata/- U T

Rahul Sharma @ Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sharma @ Rahul 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

Muroul Block Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Lalit Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Shamsha Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Digvijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Fakruddin Vs The State of Bihar

Vishvajeet Rai @ Vishvajeet Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar