Sunil Marandi @ Sunil Kumar Marandi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39355 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2020 Thana- CHANDAN District- Banka ====================================================== Sunil Marandi @ Sunil Kumar Marandi, Son of Babulal Marandi @ Lal Marandi, Resident of Village- Akakura, P.S.- Chandan, District- Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Brij Nandad Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ramchandra Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 03-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chandan (Anandpur) P.S. Case No.125 of 2020 (G.R. No.88/2020) for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 352(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act, which is pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Banka.
While the informant was away from the house, it is alleged that his minor daughter was alone. Taking advantage of this situation, the petitioner has allegedly barged into the house and attempted to disrobe and outrage the modesty of his daughter with bad intention.
The petitioner's counsel submits that it is a false
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39355 of 2020(3) dt.03-03-2021 2/2 case. No such occurrence has taken place. The petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2020.
The learned APP has drawn the attention of the Court towards the case diary. In the investigation, at least three witnesses have supported the allegations and the petitioner has been handed over to the police in an inebriated condition. Considering the rival submissions and having regard to the allegation of perpetration of such crime against a minor girl, this Court, for the present, is not inclined to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail. The same is rejected. This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T