Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.102 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad ====================================================== SURAJ KUMAR, son of Shivaji @ Shiv Prasad, Resident of Village- Muther, P.S.- Jehanabad (Kadauna O.P.), District- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 19-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State as well as informant.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Jehanabad Mahila P.S. Case No. 14 of 2020 (POCSO Case No. 27 of 2020) for the offence under Sections 354, 354(A), 354(B), 354(D), 341, 342, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in preparing obscene video of the daughter of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 18 years old. He further submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 29.09.2020.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.102 of 2021(2) dt.19-02-2021 2/2 Considering the fact that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, -cum Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jehanabad in connection with Jehanabad Mahila P.S. Case No. 14 of 2020 (POCSO Case No. 27 of 2020) with the following conditions:

(i) Both the bailors should be the female elected representatives of the local body.

(ii) In the event, the petitioner is found indulged in such type of activities, in future, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence the witnesses and if the complaint is made to that effect before the court below, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U T