Allowed

Dharmbir Kumar @ Dharmveer Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jan 2022CR. MISC./32552/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order granted bail to the petitioner, Dharmbir Kumar, accused of offences under IPC and POCSO Act alleging assault on an informant's daughter. Allowing the argument that charges were general and co-accused were released, the court ordered release on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.

Dharmbir Kumar @ Dharmveer Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Caste Atrocities | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32552 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2019 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Dharmbir Kumar @ Dharmveer Kumar, S/o Shri Rabindra Ram, R/o VillageSri Rampur Tola, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, APP

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 07-01-2022

¶13

The matter has been listed today for consideration through video conferencing.

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No.35(A) of 2019 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No.222 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354(D)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

Having no criminal case, it is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has remained in custody since 19.02.2021. There is allegation that the petitioner along with other co-accused has forcibly taken the daughter of the informant in an auto and on her resistance, they have brutally

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32552 of 2021(2) dt.07-01-2022 2/3

¶18

assaulted her.

¶19

The submission is that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the allegations are general and omnibus. No specific injury is attributed to the petitioner and even the informant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has cast general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons, as would be apparent from the order of the Special Court (POCSO Act) dated 18.03.2021, rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for bail. Other similarly situated co-accused, namely, Manish Kumar and Nilesh Kumar @ Nilesh Gupta, have been allowed bail in Cr.Misc. No.48509 of 2019 and Cr.Misc. No.9708 of 2020 respectively.

¶20

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for

¶21

bail.

¶22

Considering the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed.

¶23

Accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32552 of 2021(2) dt.07-01-2022 3/3

¶25

satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII-CumExclusive Special Court (POCSO Act), Patna, in connection with Special Case No.35(A) of 2019, arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No.222 of 2019, subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailor will also undertake to inform the court if there is any change in the address of the petitioner.

¶27

(ii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled.

¶28

This Court would expect that the petitioner’s counsel

¶29

would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office.

¶30

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶31

PNM

¶32

U T

Dharmbir Kumar @ Dharmveer Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmbir Kumar @ Dharmveer 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

Girija Kant Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Prasant Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Sunita Devi Vs the State of Bihar

Ankit Singh @ Ankit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Dharmendra Kumar @ Dk Vs the State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar