Shrawan Kumar @ Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76296 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2022 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Shrawan Kumar @ Chandan Kumar Son Of Fekan Das Resident Of VillageBhup Bhairo, Ward No. 9, Ps- Sitamarhi, Distt- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Shatrudhan Sah Son Of Late Ganeshi Sah Resident Of Village- Bhup Bhairo, Ward No. 9, Ps- Sitamarhi, Distt- Sitamarhi. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-11-2023 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 07.03.2022, in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 139 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 26.02.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. From perusal of the record, it appears that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 13.07.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.21343 of 2023 with condition that 'one of the bailors shall be the victim, namely, Usha Kumari' however, petitioner has filed a modification

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76296 of 2023(2) dt.10-11-2023 2/2 petition vide Cr. Misc. No.64341 of 2023 for modification of the aforesaid condition, which was rejected vide order dated 22.09.2023 in terms of Section 362 of Cr.P.C.

4. The petitioner has again renewed his prayer for bail by way of the present application.

5. Since on the earlier occasion, the petitioner has been granted bail on the ground that the petitioner has performed marriage with the victim and therefore, victim was ordered to be a one of the bailors of the petitioner and the petitioner has now renewed his prayer for bail on the ground that the victim is not ready to become bailor of the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T