Rangesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5014 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-718 Year-2024 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Rangesh Kumar Son of Late Satyanarayan Singh @ Late Grayan Singh village- Sonkukra Bhojpur, Ps- Masaurhi, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Prabhu Bind son of Krishna Bind village- Sonkukra Bhojpur, P.S- Masaurhi, Dist- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 4,6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the FIR, it is alleged by the informant that his son and a boy of his village were reading in Oxford Public School. On 25.8.2024, the principal of the said school, namely Rangesh Singh (petitioner), called his son Satish Kumar, aged 12 years and his friend Dhiraj Kumar, aged 14 years who are reading in class III and II, respectively, at his house for cleaning the same. On allurement he undressed them and committed unnatural offence with them. On 26.8.2024 at about 12.30, both
2/4 came to the house and disclosed the occurrence, and accordingly, FIR has been instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that it is highly unbelievable that a person will indulge in unnatural sex with two boys at the same time that too without any resistance, particularly when both boys are co-villagers and related to each other. The medical examination report of the so-called victim completely falsified the entire prosecution allegation. Even the FSL report is not as per the standard method. It has also been submitted that the blood sample of the petitioner was collected by the police during the investigation, which was sent for DNA examination, but the same has not been produced till submission of the charge sheet. It has lastly been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been in judicial custody since 28.08.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and taking into account that charge sheet has been submitted and the period of custody, let the petitioner,
3/4 above named, be enlarged on bail, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/concerned court, in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 718 of 2024 subject to the following conditions :
a. If the petitioner is found to have to influence the witness or the informant or his family member, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move the learned court below for cancellation of his bail.
b. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be her close relative.
c. The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
d. In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail and if the prosecution is found involvement of the petitioner in similar nature of offence, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be canceled by the Court concerned.
e. And further condition that the 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
4/4 terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) Prakash/- U