Allowed

Rajiv Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Sept 2022CR. MISC./29019/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner who was in custody. The court first issued a notice to remove a defect in physical filing. Upon perusing records, the court granted bail on consideration of doubt over identity and main thrust of accusation being against co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, subject to specific conditions regarding presence in court and bond cancellation on violation.

Rajiv 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.29019 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2020 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi

¶3

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

¶4

Rajiv Kumar, Son of Ras Bihari Sah, Resident of Village- Garha, P.S.Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Basant Kumar Tripathy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 13-09-2022

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

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

¶16

In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 357 of 2020 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366 (A), 372, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act.

¶17

As per prosecution case, the minor daughter of the informant went missing in the night of 30-31.07.2020. The informant named two co-accused persons, who might have taken away his minor daughter.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29019 of 2022(3) dt.13-09-2022 2/4

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been named in this case due to confusion. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The victim girl was recovered from the co-accused Harikesh Kumar Sah from Uttar Pradesh. After recovery of the victim girl, in fabrication of the case and after due deliberation, this petitioner was named in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl. There are seven persons by the name of Rajiv Kumar in the village. The father of the informant has also filed an application before the learned Special Court that this petitioner has no complicity in the occurrence. Moreover, even on the facts, it is not believable that a girl of sufficient maturity will leave the house in the midst of night on saying of the petitioner. The coaccused, from whose possession recovery of the victim girl has been made, has been granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi. There is no allegation for any offence either under Section 376 IPC or Section 4/6 of POCSO Act against this petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 09.03.2022 and the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail submitting that the name of the petitioner came up in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29019 of 2022(3) dt.13-09-2022 3/4

¶22

Perused the records.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and

¶24

submission made hereinabove and considering the fact that main thrust of accusation is against the co-accused Harikesh Kumar Sah and further considering the doubt over identity of this petitioner coupled with the submission of charge sheet and the period of custody of the petitioner, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Sitamarhi, in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.357 of 2020, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29019 of 2022(3) dt.13-09-2022 4/4

¶29

to be cancelled by the court concerned.

¶30

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶31

V.K.Pandey/-

¶32

U T

Rajiv Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv 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

Sajan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Mukhiya Vs the State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar Swarnkar Vs The State of Bihar

Karan Kumar @ Karan Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Rajan Sahani Vs The State of Bihar