IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26009 of 2009 Dinesh Paswan, Son of Ramdev Paswan, resident of Village Shahpur Chaurahiya, Police Station Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi. ---------- Petitoner Versus The State of Bihar --------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 6.11.2009 Heard Mr. Bikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and cousel for the State as also Mr. Harshvardhan Shivsundaram, learned counsel for the informant. The allegation against the petitioner for offences under Section 376, 511, 452, 323 & 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) is based on the version of the husband of the victim lady who has given a graphic detail of the occurrence. However, even if all the allegations made in the First Information Report is taken to its logical conclusion, the case probably will not be made out for one under Section 376 I.P.C. but, then, as the entire materials are not before this Court, no conclusive opinion can be recorded in this respect. For the purposes of bail, if the allegations are examined, it would be found that the informant himself has claimed that the offence of Section 376 I.P.C. was not 2 committed, inasmuch as, the victim lady was rescued on hulla raised by her. It is also not denied by the counsel for the informant that the petitioner is the immediate next door neighbour and therefore, the submission of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that there was some enmity on account of adjoining land for drainage of water which has really led to filing of this false case, cannot be altogether ignored. It again remains the fact that the criminal prosecution has to reach to its logical conclusion and the petitioner is right now an accused for the aforementioned substantive offence and therefore, even if the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, if he would be released on bail by taking into account the aforesaid aspects, then still there would be reason for their continued friction as is already established by one of the applications filed by the informant before the concerned police station alleging threatening and tampering of the evidence. This is the stage when the petitioner is still in custody and therefore, this Court would find that it would be in the interest of 3 justice requiring a free and fair trial without any pressure and intimidation to the informant, the victim lady and their witnesses as also for avoiding baseless and frivolous allegations against the petitioner and his family members that for the time being, the petitioner does not reside in the house where he was living at the time and place of occurrence and shifts his place of abode outside the district of Sitamarhi and at least 50 kilometers away from his own house and the house of the informant with an intimation. The petitioner if required to visit his house for any urgent purposes or court at Sitamarhi will have to inform both the officer-in-charge of his permanent residence and only thereafter he can go to his house and/or to the court at Sitamarhi in course of trial. Such arrangement being part of the condition of his being granted bail shall continue till the trial of the petitioner is concluded and a report to trial court of breach of this condition by the concerned police officer shall lead to cancellation of his bail. As this order of externment of the 4 petitioner from his house/district for his release on bail has been passed with the consent of the counsel for the petitioners and only for ruling out the apprehension of the informant as with regard to threat/coercion/pressure exerted by the petitioner and his family members the same cannot continue for an indefinite and long period, this Court would also direct the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner itself is concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Such direction for completion of trial is being given on an undertaking being given by the counsel for the informant that he would produce himself and his witness without fail on the date as and when fixed by the court below for their deposition. The trial court, therefore, must take up the trial of the case of petitioner on out of turn basis and ensure that the trial of the petitioner is concluded in the aforementioned period, whereafter the trial court would submit a report to this Court. 5 With the aforementioned conditions, observations and direction, the petitioner, namely, Dinesh Paswan is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Sahiyara Police Station Case No. 44 of 2009. It is, however, made clear that one of the sureties must be either of the parents of the petitioner and further the petitioner must remain present without fail in course of trial and his absence even for two consecutive dates will automatically lead to cancellation of his present bail. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)