Allowed

Deepak Kumar Paswan @ Deepak Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Jul 2022CR. MISC./57317/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's bail application in a case involving offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 372, 376, and 379 IPC. The court held that pre-trial detention was not warranted due to the lack of progress in the trial and evidence suggesting the victim disputed the age-related allegations.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Petitioner released on bail on Rs. 10,000 bond with conditions not to access witnesses, cooperate with trial, and not commit similar offences.

Deepak Kumar Paswan @ Deepak Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57317 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2018 Thana- PARIHAR District- Sitamarhi

¶3

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

¶4

Deepak Kumar Paswan @ Deepak Kumar, Son of Sikindra Paswan @ Sikandra Paswan, Resident of village - Parsandi, P.S.- Parihar, Distt.Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 20-07-2022 The applicant/accused in Crime No. 107 of 2018 (Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2021) registered with Parihar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376, 372 and 379 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by this application is seeking his release on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶11

Earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by my learned predecessor with a liberty to the applicant to renew his request if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today. It is reported that as of now there is no progress in the trial despite this order dated 23.06.2020.

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57317 of 2021(3) dt.20-07-2022 2/4

¶15

application by contending that the female child involved in this case was about 13 years of age as her dead of birth is 13.03.2005.

¶16

I have considered the submissions so advanced.

¶17

The FIR of the subject crime is undisputably registered on the basis of an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of private criminal complaint lodged by father of the victim girl. He alleged in the said complaint that all accused persons including the present applicant had kidnapped his minor daughter and forcibly took her in a Bolero vehicle for subjecting her to illicit intercourse or prostitution.

¶18

The victim female child came to be recovered by police. Her statement is recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate wherein she has stated her age as 20 years. She further disclosed to the Magistrate that she wanted to marry the applicant and to reside with him as she was subjected to cruel treatment by her ex-husband. She further disclosed that her parents are opposing her intended marriage with the applicant but she wants to reside with the present applicant.

¶19

In her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the victim has not disclosed that she was subjected to rape or illicit

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57317 of 2021(3) dt.20-07-2022 3/4

¶21

intercourse. She has stated that of her own she has joined the company of the applicant.

¶22

Considering this nature of the evidence against the applicant/accused, as there is no progress in the trial further pretrial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Therefore, the order :-

¶23

i. The application is allowed.

¶24

ii. The applicant/accused in Crime No. 107 of 2018 (Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2021) registered with Parihar Police Station be released on bail on executing P.R. bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) on furnishing surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the following conditions: -

¶25

(I) The applicant/accused should not extend any threat, promise of inducement to the persons acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶26

(II) The applicant/accused should cooperate the trail court in expeditious disposal of the trial against him.

¶27

(III) The applicant/accused should not contact the members of the prosecuting party as well as witnesses in this case in any manner till conclusion of the trial.

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57317 of 2021(3) dt.20-07-2022 4/4

¶29

(IV) The applicant should not repeat commission of similar offence in future and if he is found to be involved in commission of similar offence, the State is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant in the instant case.

¶30

The applicant to remove all office objections forthwith and the Registry to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections by the appellant/accused.

¶31

(A. M. Badar, J)

¶32

Bhardwaj/-

¶33

U T

Deepak Kumar Paswan @ Deepak Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Paswan @ Deepak 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishana Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Babu Mahato Vs the State of Bihar

Pratima Kumari Vs the State of Bihar

Balram Swarnkar Vs The State of Bihar

Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Jalendra Manjhi @ Jalo Vs The State of Bihar