Sujit Kumar @ Surjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 87820 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2024 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== Sujit Kumar @ Surjit Kumar S/o- Mahesh Das, R/o Village- Balthara, Police Station- Rajoun, District- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Shakuntala Devi W/o- Hiralal Sah R/o Village- Balthara, Police StationRajoun, District- Banka. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. It is pointed out that the matter was mentioned on several occasions but could not taken on board and for said reason, the time period was not extended. It is submitted that the petitioner never misused the privilege of bail. It is submitted that petitioner regularly attend the court thereafter but was not taken into custody by the learned trial court under impression that he is on bail. It is submitted that as matter could not taken on board after expiry of three months, for which petitioner/accused should not suffer. It is submitted by learned counsel that petitioner remains in custody for about eight months before releasing on provisional bail. It is submitted that out of love affairs, victim went

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 87820 of 2024(8) dt.21-08-2025 2/2 alongwith petitioner on her own and remains with him for long 22 days and after recovery under dictate of her parents, she alleged that petitioner solemnized marriage with her forcibly to aggravate the allegation. It is pointed out that still this matter is pending for examination of prosecution witness.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant pointed out that the period of bail of the petitioner already expired and, therefore, on the date he is not on bail but he fairly conceded that matter was not taken up on board immediately after expiry of three months

4. In view of aforesaid, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 08.01.2025 is hereby confirmed with same bailor and bonds.

5. With aforesaid, present petitions stands disposed of. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) veena/- U T