Niranjan Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51743 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Banka ====================================================== NIRANJAN DAS, Son of Genalal Das @ Gaina Das, Resident of Village - Maniyarpur, P.S.- Banka, District - Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2022 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State, through Video Conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Banka (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019, instituted for the offences under Sections 376, 377, 511, 354B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is custody since 16.06.2019 and chargesheet was submitted under Section 377 and 354 (B) of the IPC and even cognizance was taken under the aforesaid Sections.

The learned counsel submits that earlier vide Order dated 19.03.2020 in Cr. Misc. No.86410 of 2019, the bail of the petitioner was rejected recording that "looking to the nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present and accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.". The learned counsel submits that charges were framed on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51743 of 2021(2) dt.08-02-2022 2/2 20.11.2019 and since then not a single witnesses has turned up in the trial. The learned counsel further submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that attempt to commit rape was made by the petitioner and when she raised alarm, the villagers came accordingly, her modesty was saved. Learned counsel thus submits that at best it is a case of attempt, though the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the bail application.

Considering the period of custody of the petitioner and the fact that charges have been framed and his earlier bail was rejected by holding that the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present, as such, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Banka, in connection with Banka (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019. The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) sanjeev/- U T