Rinku Padit vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2632 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35581 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS Case No.-19 Year-2018 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran
     ======================================================

1. Rinku Padit, aged about 30 years, Male.

2. Dhanesh Padit @ Dhanesh Kumar, aged about 24 years, Male.

Both sons of Sri Ramnath Padit, and residents of Village - Lalgarh, PS- Bettiah, Muffasil, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
     For the State           :        Mr. Md. Arif, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel

for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Bettiah Muffasil PS Case No. 19 of 2018 dated 15.01.2018,

instituted under Sections 341, 323, 448/34 of the Indian Penal

Code and 8 and 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

4. The allegation against the petitioners, who are

brothers, is that they used to tease the daughter of the informant,

who is full sister of the mother of the petitioners, and used to also

take her pictures from their mobile whenever the daughter went

out of the house and on 12.05.20217 at about 9:30 AM, the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35581 of 2020 dt.25-06-2021

petitioners are said to have spoken dirty rhymes and the informant

upon outcry went and forbade them not to do so and finally on

16.09.2017, it is alleged that at 12 noon, when the informant had

gone to Bettiah, her daughter being alone, the petitioners had

entered the house, lifted her and threw her on the cot and had tried

to outrage her modesty but witness no. 3 had arrived on alarm and

villagers had assembled due to which the petitioners are said to

have fled away.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are aged 30 years and 24 years and they are next door

neighbours as there was partition between the family of the

petitioners and the informant and the informant being full sister of

their mother, due to such rivalry relating to land and its

demarcation, the present case has been filed. It was submitted that

though after demarcation and Panchayati, a settlement was

reached but again in the year 2018, there was dispute for which a

proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') was initiated. It was

submitted that even otherwise it is unbelievable that two brothers,

that too aged 30 and 24 years, would together take photographs

and then threaten to make it viral, as merely taking of photographs

and making it viral does not serve any purpose as it cannot be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35581 of 2020 dt.25-06-2021

used as any blackmailing. Further, it was submitted that though

the occurrence is said to have taken place on 16.09.2017, but no

police case was filed and after 16 days on 22.09.2017, a complaint

case was filed. It was submitted that there was neither any

statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code nor

any medical examination done, which also raises serious doubts

with regard to authenticity of the allegations. It was submitted the

petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that the allegation against the

petitioners is that they had taken photographs of the minor

daughter of the informant and further that they had also tried to

outrage her modesty. However, he could not reply to the

submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no police

case was filed and only after 16 days, a complaint was filed and

further that no statement was ever recorded under Section 164 of

the Code or medical examination done.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the

event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six

weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35581 of 2020 dt.25-06-2021

learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, under

POCSO Act in Bettiah Muffasil PS Case No. 19 of 2018, subject

to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors

shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners

and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with

regard to good behaviour of the petitioners and (iii) that the

petitioners shall co-operate with the police/prosecution and the

Court. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or

the undertaking or failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation

of their bail bonds.

8. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners.

9. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T