Sujeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3654 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- NAUGACHIA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar Son of Sri Pappu Singh @ Pappu Kumar Singh Resident of Vill- Auliabad, P.S.- Jhandapur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Bina Devi Wife of Gunanad Pandit Resident of Auliabad, P.S.- Jhandapur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-07-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 66(E), 67, 67A of the I.T. Act, 2000.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the petitioner used to stock her daughter, who was studying in class-XII, aged about 17 years and forced her into physical relationship and had even secretly made obscene video and had taken photographs of her daughter. It is further alleged that on 23.03.2024, when the informant had gone to the market,
2/4 the petitioner entered inside her house and had established physical relationship and when the alarm was raised, he fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and no such incident has taken place. It is also submitted that the allegation of force physical abuse has not been proved, as the victim girl was medically examined and no such sign was found. He further refers to the medical report, wherein the age of his daughter was found between 17-19 years. Learned counsel has pointed out that the false implication of the petitioner can also be gathered from the fact that the victim girl was actually in love with the petitioner and desperately wanted to marry, however, the petitioner was not ready and, as such, the panchayati was also held and thereafter in order to coerce the petitioner into marrying the daughter of the informant, the present case was lodged.
It is further submitted that the allegation of making the video viral is also false, as when the same was demanded from the informant or the victim girl, the same was not made available to the police and it was stated that it has been deleted. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 02.09.2024.
3/4
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioner had committed rape upon the daughter of the informant on several occasions and had even made her obscene video viral.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and taking into account the fact that from the medical examination report, charges leveled in the FIR is not being corroborated and also the fact that there was a relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl as accepted by the informant in the FIR, let the petitioner above-named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Bhagalpur in connection with POCSO Case No. 66 of 2024 arising out of Naugachiya (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the learned Trial Court.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be canceled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution will be
4/4 at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond. (v) The petitioner shall not approach the informant or any of the family members or the victim girl to either coerce or threaten during the pendency of the trial.
(vi) The petitioner should refrain interaction with the victim girl or the prosecution side.
(vii) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the present bail application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U