Preman Bind v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82213 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2024 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Preman Bind, Son of Sri Udal Bind @ Rudal Bind, Resident of VillageJhabbuchak, P.S. - Dulhin Bazar, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Reshmi Devi Wife Sri Tunnu Nutt Resident of Village- Jhabbuchak, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, Distt.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 34 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the minor daughter of the informant had gone to ease herself. When she did not return for a consideratble time, the informant started searching her and she came to know that Raghuveer Bind and Preman Bind have kidnapped her daughter.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82213 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025 2/2 offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, the victim has given her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that Prem Bind had taken her to Patna. She was kept in a room. She has further stated that Raghuveer Bind committed rape with her. In last part, she has stated that Prem is her brother and that he has not done anything to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that parties have compromise the case. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 28.03.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the informant is present and he has also admitted the factum of the compromise.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is no allegation against this petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1st Class, Danapur in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 34 of 2024.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T