Allowed¶26

Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Jul 2024CR. MISC./18018/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 376 IPC; Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.; Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No. 18018 of 2024; Siwan complaint case; PS Case No. 19 of 2022; Trial No. 2260 of 2023; delay of nearly four months in instituting complaint; complainant absent despite notice; jointness application; notice deemed validly served; bail bond Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; liberty to cancel bail bonds for delaying trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest or surrender within six weeks, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions; trial court given liberty to cancel bonds and take coercive steps if the petitioner delays the trial. ¶26

Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC (Complaint Case No. 19 of 2022 / Trial No. 2260 of 2023), should be released on anticipatory bail.

¶16

Court's answer

The petitioner is to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within six weeks, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since a jointness application was filed, notice on the complainant is deemed to have been validly served.

¶18

Key takeaways

If the learned trial court concludes that the petitioner, after release on bail, is trying to delay the trial in any manner, it shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds after recording reasons and to take coercive steps to ensure the petitioner is behind bars.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted by the Patna High Court (Satyavrat Verma, J) to a petitioner apprehending arrest in Complaint Case No. 19 of 2022 (PS Case No. 19/2022, Siwan) for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, pending as Trial No. 2260 of 2023. The alleged occurrence was of 22.08.2021 and, as submitted, the complaint was instituted on 04.01.2022 after a delay of nearly four months; the complainant, whose notice was received by her nephew (jointness application filed, notice deemed validly served), did not appear to contest. Bail ordered on surrender/arrest within six weeks with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two like sureties, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions, with liberty reserved to the trial court to cancel the bonds and take coercive steps if the petitioner delays the trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18018 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2022 Thana- SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSiwan

¶3

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

¶4

Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh Son of Amar Singh R/o VillageJamanpura, Post- Chakri, P.S.- Andar, District- Siwan

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Manju Devi Wife of Raj Kumar Singh R/o Village- Jamanpura, P.S.- Andar, District- Siwan, At present R/o Village- Dudhaha Tola, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

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

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶14

4 11-07-2024

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶16

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is further submitted that notices on behalf of the complainant was received by her nephew accordingly a jointness application has been filed.

¶18

Since jointness application has been filed as such the notice is deemed to have been validly served.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18018 of 2024(4) dt.11-07-2024 2/4

¶20

It is further submitted that complainant despite receiving notice chose not to appear and contest which amply demonstrates that the instant complaint case came to be instituted for some ulterior reason.

¶21

It is next submitted that the complainant alleges that on 22.08.2021 at around 05:30 p.m. she along with her brother Pramod Kumar Singh came at Jatahawa Temple from her parental home by motorcycle and thereafter her brother went to purchase some article from Andar Market and the complainant after performing pooja was waiting for her bother when the petitioner along with Ajay Singh came there and took her to upgraded middle school and the petitioner forcibly put her down and Ajay Singh committed rape when her brother along with the villagers Dudhnath Singh came and raised objection and tried to apprehend the accused but they succeeded in fleeing away after assaulting.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of occurrence is 22.08.2021 and the complaint came to be instituted on 04.01.2022 i.e. after a delay of nearly four months of the occurrence. It is further submitted that though in the complaint it has been alleged that the complainant had gone to the police station but her FIR was not instituted but then has not

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18018 of 2024(4) dt.11-07-2024 3/4

¶24

disclosed the day on which she had gone to the police station for getting an FIR registered. It is next submitted that deliberately the instant complaint came to be instituted so that the case is not investigated as the falsity of the allegation would manifest. It is also submitted that this perhaps explains why the complainant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest. It is further submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial.

¶25

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶26

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Trial No. 2260 of 2023 arisng out of Complaint Case No. 19 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶27

However, if the learned trial court comes to a

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18018 of 2024(4) dt.11-07-2024 4/4

¶29

conclusion that petitioner, after his release on bail, is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after recording reasons and to take all coercive steps that petitioner is behind bar.

¶30

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶31

Kundan/-

¶32

U T

Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Satyaki Kumar @ Vivek Yadav @ Vivek Kumar @ Sattiyaki Vs The State of Bihar

Navin Kumar Chauhan Vs The State of Bihar

Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar