Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22374 of 2016 (2) dt.05-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22374 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA PS District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Vikash Kumar, son of Ashok Thakur, Resident of Village- Sikaria, P.O.- Bhewar, Sikaria, P.S.-Karauna O.P. Jehanabad, District-Jehanbad. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Chandra Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jehanabad Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 304, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

Allegedly, when the informant was returning after attending call of nature, co-accused Kishan Kumar dragged her in Baithka of Suresh Singh, Prince Kumar was seeing hither and thither and the petitioner directed not to raise alarm but in spite of that the informant raised alarm, resulting, uncle came, then three persons fled away. Submission is of false implication and that no time of occurrence is mentioned in the first information report, the age of the informant has been added later on to make the matter serious which is evident from perusal of the first information report itself, at the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22374 of 2016 (2) dt.05-07-2016 instance and pressure of one Manju Devi the wife of Nayak Paswan this case has been lodged, there is only allegation against the petitioner that he asked the informant not to raise alarm and further told to give her money, other two co-accused have been allowed pre-arrest bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 21688 of 2016 and the petitioner is suffering in custody since 29.02.2016, compromise petition has also been filed in the court below. Learned APP fairly submits that the informant has compromised the case.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Jehanabad in connection with Jehanabad Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T