Babu Lal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23588 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Madhubani ====================================================== BABU LAL YADAV Son of Rambilas Yadav @ Ram Bilas Yadav Resident of Village - Damala, Bisfi, P.S. Bisfi, District - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2020 Heard Mr. Ratanakar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Madhubani Case No. 103 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The allegation as per the First Information Report is that the informant was married to the petitioner about 10 months back as per her own free will. After marriage, the petitioner started sending the informant to another person for illegal act. It has also been alleged that the petitioner sent the informant with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23588 of 2020(4) dt.09-11-2020 2/3 a lady namely, Kanchan Devi who forced her to sit on a Motorcycle with two unknown boys who snatched Rs.600/- from the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not performed marriage with the informant and he has falsely been implicated in this case with oblique motive. Learned counsel also submits that Section 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is bailable offence and the total punishment in this Act, is six months whereas the petitioner has remained in custody since 20.02.2020.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2020, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in connection with Mahila P.S. Madhubani Case No. 103 of 2016. It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23588 of 2020(4) dt.09-11-2020 3/3 bonds all the parties shall follow the guidelines regarding social distancing.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T