The court enlarged the petitioner on bail in a case involving offences under Sections 366A IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, 2012, requiring a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, noting contradictions in the victim's age and statement.
Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39542 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2018 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Saurabh Soni @ Golu Soni son of Lav Soni @ Lav Kumar resident of village - Mangal Bazar, Sangam Studio, Ward No. - 8, P.S. - Nabinagar, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Rupa Kumari, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL ORDER
3 06-09-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since
27.04.2018 in connection with Nabinagar P.S. Case No. 113/2018, G.R. No. 24/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 366A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that his 13 year old daughter Arti Kumari went to the market and did not return. It is alleged that the petitioner must have kidnapped the informant's daughter as he used to eve-tease her.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal history and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the victim girl in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39542 of 2018(3) dt.06-09-2018 2/2
has stated that she had a love affair with the petitioner and wants to marry the petitioner. Her age has been recorded as 14 years but she has stated her age to be 17 years. From the case diary it appears that the age of the victim has been assessed as 16 to 17 years which has been ascertained on the basis of medical examination and X-ray report. He submits that there is contradiction in the allegation made in the FIR and the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioner, above named, 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 learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aurangabad in connection with Nabinagar P.S. Case No. 113/2018, G.R. No. 24/2018.
(Nilu Agrawal, J)
Rajesh/Pragya
U T
2 issues framed by the court
whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in a POCSO case.
whether the contradiction between the FIR and the victim's statement warrants bail.
SAURABH SONI
THE STATE OF BIHAR
NILU AGRAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
