Surjeet Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6464 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2017 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ====================================================== Surjeet Yadav Son of Vimal Yadav, Resident of Village-Hariharpur, P.S. Sono, District-Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nut, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 08-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 20.10.2017 in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 111 of 2017 for the offences alleged under Sections 366(A), 385, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by reason of some family dispute as the petitioner happens to be the son-in-law of the informant. There is an inordinate delay of about one week in filing the complaint on 22.04.2017 for the alleged occurrence of 15.04.2017. The accusations in the complaint are belied from the statement of the so-called victim girl who has clearly stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner to Haryana and Jamui. The age of the informant's daughter is 18 years according to the medical report

(Annexure-3). It is further submitted that the accusation of demanding extortion of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the petitioner's father is merely ornamental. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jamui, in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 111 of 2017, on the following conditions:- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial. (iii) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

(iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- U T