SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar
MAHAVIR SINGH @ MAHAVIR KUMAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CR. MISC./44929/2022



A person accused of a serious crime, such as rape, may be entitled to bail if the trial has not been concluded within a period of six months.

Headnote:

POCSO ACT - BAIL - MINOR VICTIM - FALSE IMPLICATION

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of raping a minor girl, taking her obscene photographs and videos, and threatening her to make physical relationship with him showing fear to make her future spoil by making obscene photographs and videos viral.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim had made direct allegations against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 23.05.2022.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the allegations against the petitioner were serious and that he had been in judicial custody for a significant period of time. However, the court also noted that the trial had not been concluded within a period of six months and that the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial was not concluded within that time.

Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail and directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44929 of 2022

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2022 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar

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

Mahavir Singh @ Mahavir Kumar Singh Son Of Vishwanath Singh Resident

Of Village - Mahaldar Tola, Azamnagar, District - Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Bimal Kumar

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR

ORAL ORDER

3

10-01-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has filed the instant application

for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner told the

minor victim girl to come to his house to take books and

notes and when she came to his house, then petitioner

gave her water to drink and after drinking such water

she became unconscious, then petitioner made physical

relationship with her and took her obscene photographs

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44929 of 2022(3) dt.10-01-2023

2/3

and videos and threatened her to make physical

relationship with him showing fear to make her future

spoil by making obscene photographs and videos viral. It

is alleged that in the month of March, petitioner forcibly

made physical relationship with the victim girl and made

her obscene photographs and video viral.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in

this. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.05.2022. It

is also submitted that victim herself has not disclosed

any specific date about the physical relation in her

statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and

later on she gave her Statement recorded under Section

164 and said about the specific date of the alleged

occurrence.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State

vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and

submitted that the victim has made direct allegation

against the petitioner of commission of rape, in her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44929 of 2022(3) dt.10-01-2023

3/3

statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She

has also asserted about the complicity of petitioner in

threatening her and taking photographs and making

video of the alleged occurrence.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and considering the nature of allegation, this

court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and,

as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the

trial and conclude the same within a period of six

months.

However, if the trial of the petitioner is not

concluded within a period of six months, he would be at

liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

nirajkrs/-

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)

U

T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top