Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Feb 2019CR. MISC./8617/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused in a P.O.C.S.O. case under Sections 354(A), 509 IPC and Sec 12 P.O.C.S.O. Act. The court noted the absence of eye-witnesses and the petitioner's clean antecedents after nine months in custody, ordering release on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.

Pradeep Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8617 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2018 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Pradeep Kumar s/o Late Ram Kumar Mahto, r/v- Baruhi, P.S.-Sahar, District – Bhojpur (Ara)

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 27-02-2019

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶14

The petitioner is in custody since 05.06.2018 seeks bail in Sahar P.S. Case No. 134/2018 (P.O.C.S.O. Case No. 36/18), registered for the offence punishable under Section 354(A)/509 of the Indian Penal Code and section 12 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for almost nine months having clean antecedent, so he may be extended the privilege of bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8617 of 2019(2) dt.27-02-2019 2/2

¶18

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur Ara in connection with Sahar P.S. Case No. 134/2018 (P.O.C.S.O. Case No. 36/2018), subject to the conditions:-

¶19

(1.) One of the bailors will be his own blood relative, preferably, father, mother, brother, sister and/or wife.

¶20

(2.) The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

¶21

(3.) The petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶22

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶23

vinita/- U T

Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manglu @ Mangloo @Md. Mangal @ Md. Mangloo@ Mangal Vs The State of Bihar

Birbal Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Ramjiwan Singh @ Ramjeevan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Kailash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Virendra Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Soni Devi Vs The State of Bihar