Nageshwar Prasad vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1237 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36932 of 2020
    Arising Out of PS Case No.-221 Year-2020 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya
======================================================

Nageshwar Prasad, aged about 72 years, (Male), Son of Late Badri Prasad, Resident of Mohalla - Ramshila Pahar, PS-Kotwali District-Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. SSP Yadav, Advocate For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-03-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. SSP Yadav, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Dr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioner is in custody connection with POCSO

Case No. 64 of 2020 arising out of Kotwali PS Case No. 221 of

2020 dated 12.06.2020, instituted under Sections 376-B of the

Indian Penal Code; 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012, read with 3(w) (i) and 3(2)(v) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is of committing

rape on the seven years old daughter of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36932 of 2020 dt.03-03-2021

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is

innocent being aged 72 years. It was further submitted that the

version of the girl is tutored and that there is dispute with regard

to flow of water between the parties who are neighbours. Learned

counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since

14.06.2020.

6. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that

witnesses have supported the prosecution story and most

importantly, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner herself has

corroborated what has been stated in the FIR and the statement of

the victim girl before the Court under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9. However, the Court below shall expedite the trial and

conclude it, preferably within six months.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T