Navin Pandey And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13595 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -22 Year- 2017 Thana -HALSI District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================

1. Navin Pandey, Son of Late Kailash Pandey @ Kaila Pandey.

2. Uma Pandey, W/o Late Kailash Pandey @ Kaila Pandey, Both are residents of Village- Nongarh, P.S. Halsi, District- Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Halsi P.S.Case No. 22 of 2017, POCSO Case No. 11 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

Allegation against the petitioner No.1 is of dragging the informant towards Rahri field on the point of pistol with bad intention and thereafter persons assembled and she was saved. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no such occurrence has taken place and petitioner No.2 is a lady and there is counter case also.

Heard learned APP also.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13595 of 2018 (2) dt.09-04-2018 2/2 Having heard both sides and in the facts and circumstances, let the petitioner No.2, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in connection with Halsi P.S.Case No. 22 of 2017, POCSO Case No. 11 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further condition that one of the bailors shall be a local person having sufficient immoveable properties within the jurisdiction of court concerned.

So far petitioner No.1 is concerned, let him surrender and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merit, without being prejudiced by this order.

With the above observation, this application is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U