Allowed

Rahul Ranjan @ Sonu Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Sept 2022CR. MISC./29606/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 437(3) CrPC, the Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner, Rahul Ranjan, accused under POCSO and IPC sections for kidnapping and abducting a minor. The court was influenced by the victim's and her family's denial of the prosecution case and the absence of medical evidence of sexual activity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties subject to appearance at dates and attendance of a close relative as bailor.

Rahul Ranjan @ Sonu 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.29606 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2022 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

Rahul Ranjan @ Sonu Kumar, Son of Upendra Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village - Jamuaon, Tikarpar, P.s.- Wazirganj, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 23-09-2022

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

A.P.P. for the State through video conferencing.

¶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 Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 83 of 2022 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366 (a)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

¶17

As per prosecution case, the minor daughter of the informant went missing and on inquiry, the informant came to know that the petitioner and the co-accused took her away giving inducement.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29606 of 2022(4) dt.23-09-2022 2/3

¶20

victim girl as well as her mother, her aunt and her father have been examined before the learned trial court and none of them have supported the prosecution case. They have stated in unison that the victim girl went on her own to fetch medicine for her mother and she went alone to Nawada. The victim girl was examined and her medical report also shows no signs of any sexual activity. Further learned counsel submits that the victim girl has given a different statement when her statement was recorded but even then she stated about going with the petitioner out of her sweet will. The petitioner is in custody since 23.02.2022.

¶21

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made hereinabove and considering the denial of the victim girl as well as her family members in their deposition before the learned trial court absolving the petitioner of any wrongful activity and also considering 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 Special Judge, POCSO-cum- Additional District Judge-VI, Gaya, in connection with Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 83 of 2022, subject to

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29606 of 2022(4) dt.23-09-2022 3/3

¶24

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

¶26

relative of the petitioner.

¶27

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on

¶28

each and every date fixed by the court below.

¶29

(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

¶30

to be cancelled by the court concerned.

¶31

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶32

V.K.Pandey/-

¶33

U T

Rahul Ranjan @ Sonu Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Ranjan @ Sonu 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

Sagir Sai Vs The State of Bihar

Raunak Kumar @ Munna @ Munna Kumar @ Jaliyavasum Vs the State of Bihar

Mantu Paswan @ Muntun Paswan Vs the State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Chandrabasu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Deepak Kumar Gupta @ Lallu Vs The State of Bihar