Dayanand Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30746 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -175 Year- 1999 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ====================================================== Dayanand Paswan, son of Bibeka Nand Paswan, R/v Chousa, P.S. Chousa Distt. Madhepura .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 30-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 175 of 1999 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 452 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly the petitioner and other co-accused at the point of pistol took away Rs. 2400/- and also kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.
Submission is of false implication and that the victim girl has been recovered on the same day and she has not stated regarding any sexual harassment and the petitioner being the relative of the informant have been implicated in a pre-planned manner. The petitioner has voluntarily surrendered on 06.05.2015 and since then he is in custody. The victim has stated her age 18
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30746 of 2015 (3) dt.30-10-2015 2/2 years in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that there is no allegation of sexual harassment.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea arising out of K. Hat P.S. Case No. 175 of 1999 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be 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) sushma/- U