Pintu Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4098 of 2017 (2) dt.15-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4098 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -75 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Pintu Kumar Mehta, Son of Shri Mahendra Mehta, Resident of VillageBarmottar, Police Station- Madhepura, District- Madhepura... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surender Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyadev Prasad Singh Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 21.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5446 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 23.10.2015 without any fault, now the informant has already been examined during trial as PW 6 and she has stated regarding innocence of the petitioner, she has specifically stated that Ratnesh has committed rape with her and the petitioner was not involved in crime.

Learned APP submits that the informant/victim during her examination in trial has not stated regarding participation of the petitioner in the crime.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4098 of 2017 (2) dt.15-02-2017 bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special judge, POCSO Act, Madhepura in connection with POCSO Special Case No. 01 of 2016 /CIS 01 of 2016 arising out of Mahila (Madhepura) P.S. Case No. 75 of 2015, 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