Anu Sonar @ Arun Sonar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16632 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -156 Year- 2015 Thana -KARAKAT District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Anu Sonar @ Arun Sonar Son of Dev Nath Sonar, Resident of VillageMatha, PS Karakat, District Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chandra Prasad, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 156 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 376, 511, 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of the grand daughter aged six years of the informant and thereafter other co-accused assaulted the son of the informant causing injuries on his head with cut mark.

Submission is of false implication and there is case and counter case, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, only on suspicion the petitioner has been implicated and no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16632 of 2016 (3) dt.20-06-2016 2/2 occurrence has taken place, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner and without any fault, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 19.10.2015. The injuries found on the person of the son of the informant were simple. The learned A.P.P submits that after completing investigation, chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 354(A), 376, 511, 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the detention of the petitioner, now, he is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 156 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Mishra/- U T