Allowed

Vikash Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 May 2022CR. MISC./55507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to a 18-year-old school student accused of abducting a minor girl. The court noted the FIR delay, victim's statement suggesting voluntary association with the accused, and the petitioner's clean antecedents. Bail was granted under strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order to release petitioner on bail, subject to bonds of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties (one being a close relative) and standard conditions of attending trial and not tampering with evidence.

Vikash Sharma Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55507 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S BAGHA District- West Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Vikash Sharma S/O Yogi Sharma R/O Village- Dahwa, P.S.- Dhanaha, District- West Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate+ For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 16-05-2022

¶10

Let the defects, if any, be removed within four weeks from today.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶12

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered in connection with Bagaha Mahila P.S.Case No. 59 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 379,120B, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.

¶13

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 17.12.2020 the daughter of the informant aged about 16 years had taken away by the petitioner along with other FIR named accused persons. It has also been alleged that all the accused persons with a conspiracy also took away gold ornaments as

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55507 of 2021(3) dt.16-05-2022 2/4

¶15

well as cash of Rs. 25,000/- . After search, the informant came to know that the accused persons were taking away his daughter to the house of Kayamuddin Ansari. When the informant reached at the home of co-accused Ansari, the accused persons fled away with his daughter and kept her in the house of Vikash Sharma. Thereafter, informant brought his daughter from the house of Vikash Sharma.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a school going boy aged about 18 years. It appears that it is a case of elopement as both the boy and girl studying in the same coaching center and during the course of investigation, it has come that there was love affair between boy and girl. It is further submitted that occurrence took place on 17.12.2020 but the F.I.R has been instituted after delay of 11 days on 28.12.2020. It is next submitted that though the statement of victim has been recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C, by the police in which she has stated that prior to the occurrence, petitioner had taken away and committed wrong act before two months of the alleged occurrence but she did not make any complaint to anyone. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, it has also come that the informant was making a demand of Rs. 1 lac for settlement of dispute but

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55507 of 2021(3) dt.16-05-2022 3/4

¶18

the family of the petitioner refused to do so. It is lastly submitted that petitioner has suo moto surrendered before the learned court below on 18.01.2021.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submits that the victim has produced before the medical board and her aged has been assessed in between 15 to 17 years. He further submits that the victim has categorically stated in her statement that she was forcefully taken away by the accused persons including the petitioner.

¶20

Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that daughter of the informant voluntarily left her house with gold ornaments and cash. Apart from the fact that occurrence has taken place on 17.12.2020 but FIR has been instituted after delay of 11 days. Moreover, the petitioner is a school going student and he is in custody since 18.01.2021 having clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge POCSO cum Addtional Sessions Judge, VII Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Bagaha Mahila P.S.Case No. 59

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55507 of 2021(3) dt.16-05-2022 4/4

¶22

of 2020, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions

¶23

which are as follows:-

¶24

(i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the

¶25

trial.

¶26

(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.

¶27

(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.

¶28

(iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates

¶29

without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.

¶30

(Harish Kumar, J.)

¶31

N.K/-

¶32

U T

Vikash Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Sharma 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

Rajeev Pratap Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Jag Mohan Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Dhiraj Kumar @ Rocky Vs The State of Bihar

Devanand Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Mujahid Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Kumar @ Birendra Sahni Vs the State of Bihar