Ranjeet Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48383 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2023 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Ranjeet Pandit, Son of Raju Pandit, R/O Village- Sarta, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Jyoti Kumari, D/o Sanjay Pandit, W/o Nitish Kumar, R/o village - Sarta, P.S. - Paras Bigha, Distt. - Jehanabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, APP For the O.P.No.2 :

Mr. Kumar Balkrishna, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 196 of 2023 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

3. As per prosecution case, co-accused Nitish Kumar giving inducement of marriage established physical relationship with the informant and made her pregnant. The allegation against the petitioner is that, being uncle of the co-accused, he helped him in his nefarious designs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48383 of 2024(3) dt.20-11-2024 2/3

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner for any wrong doing. Merely because he is uncle of the co-accused, he has been falsely implicated. The learned counsel further submits that there is inordinate delay of more than five months and there is no explanation for the same. The learned counsel further submits that the informant herself went to Delhi and solemnized marriage with co-accused Nitish Kumar and they have filed a compromise petition before the learned trial court and the co-accused has been granted bail by the learned trial court. The petitioner is having clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admits the factum of compromise.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the completely vague nature of allegation against the petitioner and further considering the possibility of false implication, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48383 of 2024(3) dt.20-11-2024 3/3 today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIcum-Special Judge, POCSO, Jehanabad, in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 196 of 2023, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T