IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.2296 of 2011
1. GUDDU MAHALDAR
2. MUKESH MAHALDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
03 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
Addl. P.P. for the State.
Petitioners are named in the first information report with
direct allegation of gang rape.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that petitioner no.1 is presently residing at the village of his maternal
grand father to look after his property and as a matter of fact, his
maternal grand father as well as his other family members were
eliminated by one Biso @ Bishwanath Mahaldar and others for which
Korha P.S. Case no. 43/1993 was instituted and in the aforesaid case,
above stated Biso @ Bishwanath Mahaldar as well as other accused
persons faced trial and they were convicted by the learned Ist Addl.
Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial no. 2/1994 vide judgment
dated 19.9.1995. It is further pointed out by him that after serving out
the sentence, the above stated Biso @ Bishwanath Mahaldar came out
of jail and subsequently, they managed the informant with the help of
daughter-in-law of the above stated Biso @ Bishwanath Mahaldar
who happens to be Mukhiya of the village and got instituted the
instant false case against the petitioners and other accused persons. It
is further pointed out by him hat when the informant was medically
examined, no sign of rape was found on her person rather doctor has
opined that she had been used for sexual purposes since long.
-2-
On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes
the prayer submitting not only the informant supported the story of
gang rape but also several witnesses have stated that they had seen the
petitioners and other accused persons fleeing away from the place of
the occurrence.
Although petitioners are languishing in jail custody since
1.10.2010 but taking into consideration the above stated facts as well
as submissions of the parties, I do not feel it proper to release them on
bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail in connection with Korha P.S.
Case no. 12/2010 stands rejected.
However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar is
directed to commit the case of the petitioners to the court of sessions
in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
order and furthermore, the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar is directed
to proceed with the trial of the petitioners and conclude the trial within
six months from the date of receipt of the record after commitment.
It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioners is not
concluded within the above stated period, the petitioners may renew
their prayer for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar itself.
shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)