Patna High Court
Nitu Gupta @ Nitu Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No 356 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2020 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
NITU GUPTA @ NITU PRASAD GUPTA Son of Sri Daroga Prasad
Resident of village-Loharpatiya Naya Basti, P.S- Lauriya, District-West
Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. ana Vikram Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.A.G
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-03-2021
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Special PP for the State.
2 The appellant has preferred the present Appeal under
Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, SC/ST Act)
against the refusal of his prayer for regular bail vide order dated
19.06.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special
Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for brevity,
POCSO)/SC/ST Act, West Champaran at Bettiah in a case
registered under Sections 306/34 of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act in connection with Lauriya Police
Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 27 of 2020 dated 23.03.2020.
3 The informant has alleged that four persons including
the appellant have entered in his house with the intention of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.356 of 2021 dt.16-03-2021
teasing his niece. They fled away on hulla being raised and next
day, spread rumours about the easy virtue of the victim leading to
her committing suicide.
4 It is submitted by the appellant's counsel that in the
statement made before the police during investigation, mother of
the victim has named only co-accused Nitesh sah of entering the
house with the intention of teasing. Appellant's implication is
based on extraneous considerations and only in a general and
omnibus manner that he was spreading rumours. Appellant is
having no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since
08.06.2020.
5 In my opinion, a case for grant of regular bail is made
out. The impugned order dated 19.06.2020 requires interference
by this Court, which is, accordingly, set aside.
6 Learned Special PP for the State has submitted that
the victim's mother, in the course of investigation, has stated about
teasing of the victim girl and specifically named co-accused Nitesh
Sah.
7 Considering the rival submissions, this appeal is
allowed. The impugned order dated 19.06.2020 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST/POCSO
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.356 of 2021 dt.16-03-2021
Act, West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Lauriya PS
Case No 27 of 2020 dated 23.03.2020 is set aside.
8 Let the appellant above named be released on bail on
his furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST/POCSO
Act, West Champaran at Bettiah in Lauriya PS Case No 27 of 2020
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the
appellant who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he
is related with the appellant. The bailor will also undertake to
inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the
appellant.
(2) That the appellant will be well represented on each
date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will
be liable to be cancelled.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.03.2021
Transmission Date 17.03.2021
