Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 11044 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-612 Year-2020 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== SUSHIL KUMAR @ SUSHIL YADAV Son Of Surendra Yadav Resident Of Village -Tokshipur (Itwa), P. S. - Gamharia, District - Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-07-2021 This case has been taken up for consideration today through Video Conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Madhepura (Ghailarh) Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 612 of 2020 dated 11.08.2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for brevity, POCSO) Act. The informant has alleged that his daughter, aged about 16 years, was on way for studying when she has been taken away by three persons including the petitioner. The allegation is on the premise that the accused persons had come to her house in the afternoon for tea and that this petitioner and co-accused Bipin used to visit her house along with Uma
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11044 of 2021(2) dt.06-07-2021 2/3 Shankar, truck driver who has employed the informant's son. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even, as per First Information Report, informant is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence and the petitioner's implication is based merely on suspicion. The petitioner, in fact, has no concern with the informant or the victim. The victim, after her recovery, has stated that she wanted to marry co-accused Uma Shankar but he refused to solemnize the marriage and that there is no allegation of any physical abuse or rape having been made against the petitioner. At best, there is allegation of taking away the informant's daughter.
Co-accused Uma Shankar, against whom primary allegations have been made, has been taken in custody and there is no overt act alleged against the petitioner by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2020. The falsity of the allegation is further evident from the fact that allegations have been made belatedly. Offence is alleged to have been committed on 03.08.2020 whereas First Information Report has been lodged on 11.08.2020. There is one criminal antecedent of the petitioner in which he is on bail.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11044 of 2021(2) dt.06-07-2021 3/3 Considering the aforesaid, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on his furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge (POCSO), Madhepura in connection with Madhepura (Ghailarh) PS Case No 612 of 2020 dated 11.08.2020 subject to the following conditions:- (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailor will also undertake to inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the petitioner.
(ii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant proceedings today for depositing requisite Court fee and removing the defect (s), as pointed out, when called upon to do so.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T