Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46496 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -151 Year- 2014 Thana -DIGHA District- PATNA ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Son of : Sri Sunil Kumar Resident of Village : Amhara, P.S. Bihta, District : Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Priyedarshi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 01-03-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 151 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 27.02.2015 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45319 of 2014. It is submitted that the trial has not been concluded as yet and only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and in near future, the trial is not likely to be concluded and the petitioner is suffering in custody since 07.07.2014. The victim girl in her statement recorded

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46496 of 2015 (4) dt.01-03-2016 2/2 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not stated regarding any sexual harassment done with her. The learned A.P.P. now considering detention of the petitioner does not oppose the prayer of bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering detention of the petitioner, above named, 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 Learned Additional Session Judge XI, Patna in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 151 of 2014, 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.) ajaypd./- U T