Saif Ali v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41848 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA PS District- East Champaran ====================================================== SAIF ALI S/o Mustaque Ahmad @ Muslim Ansari R/o Mohalla- Balua Tal, P.O. and P.S.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran at Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 15-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 354(A), 313 and 376 IPC registered in connection with Mahila Thana Motihari P.S. Case No.14 of 2019.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the accusation that he established physical relationship with the informant, a student of B. Com first year, for three years on the pretext that the petitioner will marry her after her final year examination, later on he resiled from his promise. During the aforesaid period the informant has become pregnant and the petitioner compelled her for abortion on two occasions. It is submitted that there is inordinate delay in institution of the FIR on 07.04.2019 allegedly for the first occurrence, which took
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41848 of 2019(2) dt.15-07-2019 2/3 place three years before. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted her age to be of 23 years. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.
4. Learned APP appears and opposes the petition inviting reference to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anurag Soni vs. The State of Chattisgarh, AIR Weekly 2019 SC 1857, to submit that there was no valid consent of the informant which had been obtained on misconception of fact as mentioned in Section 90 of the IPC.
5. Be that as it may and considering that the facts in Anurag Soni's case (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as it does not appear from the FIR that there is any material to indicate the petitioner's intention from the very inception not to marry the informant, in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in connection with Mahila Thana Motihari P.S. Case No. 14 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and also subject to the following further conditions: i. That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41848 of 2019(2) dt.15-07-2019 3/3 ii. That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.
iii. That the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. iv. The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.
(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T