Allowed

Vicky Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Sept 2022CR. MISC./24673/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to three petitioners accused of offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, and IT Act. The court released them on a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with conditions, noting the informant's statement only mentioned 'marpeet' and photographs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each.

Vicky Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67754 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2021 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad

¶3

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

¶4

KANHAI YADAV @ KANHAI KUMAR, S/o Sanjay Yadav R/o villageBijulia, Post- Nimachaturbhuj, P.S.- Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad (Bihar)

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 21655 of 2022

¶11

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2021 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad

¶12

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

¶13

GABBAR YADAV @ SUBODH KUMAR @ GABBARA YADAV, Son of Binay Yadav Resident of Village - Bijulia, Post- Nimachaturbhuj, Police Station - Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶18

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

¶19

with

¶20

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24673 of 2022

¶21

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2021 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad

¶22

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

¶23

Vicky Kumar Son Of Sri Banarsi Ravani @ Karu Ramani R/O VillageBijuliya, Post- Nima Chaturbhuj, P.S.- Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶28

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

¶29

Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67754 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 21655 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24673 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kiran, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67754 of 2021(3) dt.19-09-2022 2/4

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶33

3 19-09-2022

¶34

Since three cases arise out of Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 250 of 2021 as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

¶36

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

¶37

In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 250 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 354(D), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act 2012 and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

¶38

As per prosecution case, the minor informant was accosted by the petitioners and other co-accused and they demanded her mobile number and when she refused, they started disrobing her, molested her, assaulted her, teased her and started making her video and putting it on facebook.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner did not participate in the occurrence as alleged. The allegations are general and omnibus against all the

¶40

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67754 of 2021(3) dt.19-09-2022 3/4

¶41

accused persons and no specific overt act has been attributed to any of them. The present case counter blast of Complaint Case No. 510 of 2021 filed by the cousin of the petitioner Kanhai Yadav against the family of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner Vicky Kumar further submits that the petitioner has never uploaded any video on the facebook and never tried to disrobe the informant and did not touch her. So, no offence as alleged to be made out against him. The petitioners are in custody since 27.08.2021, 28.03.2022 and 24.03.2022, respectively.

¶42

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners submitting that the petitioners sexually assaulted the minor informant and disrobed her and uploaded her video on facebook. However, learned APP concedes that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the informant has stated about the petitioners doing only marpeet with her and taking photograph, which was posted on facebook.

¶43

Perused the record.

¶44

Having regard to the fact and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the informant has only stated about ‘marpeet’ and taking of photographs in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and further considering the period of custody of the petitioner who are of quite young age, the petitioners above named are directed to

¶45

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67754 of 2021(3) dt.19-09-2022 4/4

¶46

be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-VI-cum-Special Exclusive Judge (POCSO), Aurangabad (Bihar) in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 250 of 2021, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions:

¶47

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

¶48

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

¶49

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

¶50

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶51

Gautam/-

¶52

U T

Vicky Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky 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

Subhash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Rai @ Rakesh Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Naresh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Gabbar Yadav @ Subodh Kumar @ Gabbara Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Satyajit Kumar @ Sujit Gore @ Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Ashish Yadav Vs the State of Bihar