AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 339 wordsHeard Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.
The petitioner is in custody in connection with Saharsa Sadar (Sonbarsa Kachahari) PS Case No. 778 of 2019 dated 29.08.2019, instituted under
Sections 376(a) (b)/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he tried to commit rape on the five years old daughter of the informant by taking her on the pretext of
collecting wood and had molested her and on cry raised he had fled away.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is false and due to local village politics, he has been implicated. It was further
submitted that the forensic examination has not detected any semen. It was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 30.08.2019. Learned
counsel submitted that the doctor has not found any external injury on the body.
Learned APP submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the petitioner and most importantly, the victim herself before the Court has
stated that the petitioner tried to outrage her modesty. Learned counsel submitted that even the forensic report has detected blood stain on the clothes
worn by the petitioner and further that in the opinion of the doctor in the medical report though there is no external injury found on the body but there
was superficial injury. It was further submitted that there is no reason for a five years old girl to make a false statement, that too, before the Court
which had recorded the statement after following the due procedure prescribed of recording such statement to ensure that there was no tutoring.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.