Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6037 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Ravidas, aged about 24 years, (Male), S/O Late Shravan Ravidas @ Servan Mochi, R/O Village Begrajpur, P.S. Pakri Barawan, District Nawada.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-03-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 354 (B)/506 of the I.P.C. and 8 of POCSO Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.03.2020 at about 9.00 P.M. in the night, the villager of the informant, namely, Rohit Ravidas (petitioner) came in his house on the eve of Holi and taking opportunity, started misbehaving with his minor daughter, namely, Sulekha Kumari. When the victim

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6037 of 2021(2) dt.09-03-2021 2/3 made hulla then her uncle and aunty came then Rohit Ravidas (petitioner) in drunken state fled away. When the informant knew about this occurrence, then he came to his village from Kanauj on 13.03.2020 and went at the house of Rohit Ravidas (petitioner) then his family members said that the informant will marry his daughter with Rohit Ravidas (petitioner), otherwise, they will again repeat the same thing with another daughter of the informant.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 10.03.2020 as to when the present case was instituted on 17.03.2020. The delay has not been explained by the prosecution. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is denied by the petitioner.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6037 of 2021(2) dt.09-03-2021 3/3 weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Nawada, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 9/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./- U T