Chandra Mohan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56550 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2018 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Chandra Mohan Kumar, Son of Meghnath Sahani, resident of Village- Karja, Police Station- Karja in the District of Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Indra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in Karja P.S. Case No. 114 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8/10 of the POCSO Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of trying to outrage the modesty of the daughter of the Informant along with FIR named accused.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the occurrence is of 03.06.2018 but FIR has been registered on 06.06.2018. It has been further submitted that there is previous dispute regarding possession of land between the petitioner and informant. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and is in custody16.07.2018.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56550 of 2018(2) dt.06-10-2018 2/2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Karja P.S. Case No. 114 of 2018, with following conditions:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel his bail bond.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- U