Anuj Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.63984 of 2018 ====================================================== Anuj Chauhan, Son of Surjeet Chauhan @ Sarju Chauhan, Resident of Village- Bagahi, P.S. Paraiya, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in Paraiya P.S. Case No. 70/2018, registered for the offences punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act. Allegation is kidnapping of minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

It has been submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The real fact is that victim girl fled away with another boy to Dhanbad. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not taken the name of petitioner. From the medical report (Annexure-3) it appears that there is no sign of rape.

Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He is in custody

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63984 of 2018 (2) dt.29-10-2018 2/2 since 17.05.2018.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge Ist, Gaya in connection with Paraiya P.S. Case No. 70/2018, subject to the conditions: (1.) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2.) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court.

(3.) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) Vinita/- U T