IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32709 of 2009 SANTOSH KUMAR, son of Sachidanand Singh, resident of village Chakarwari Tola, Samastipur, P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, District Begusarai Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 7.11.2009 Heard Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/ss 354, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Agrawal basing primarily his submissions on the allegation made in the F.I.R. would submit that nothing specific has been alleged against the petitioner, inasmuch as such allegation of either teasing or subjecting to some sort of physical misbehavior with the deceased girl is against all five accused persons including the petitioner and therefore, the offence at best being u/s 354 I.P.C., the petitioner being in custody since 27th January, 2009 deserves to be released on bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State having examined the case diary has submitted that there are unimpeachable 2 materials to show that the mental condition of the victim girl who out of shame and disgust on account of immoral behaviour of the petitioner with her on the previous day had consumed poison. In this respect he refers to the statement of Shalu Kumari the sister of the deceased which to say the lease is atrocious wherein she has given full details as to how the petitioner on 13th January 2009, was the first person in the group who had dared to outrage the modesty of the deceased girl by stopping her in the way when she was returning from the flour mill with the container having grinded flour on her bicycle by intercepting her cycle, catching her by hair and trying to force physical assault on her person. This part of incident infact was also revealed by the deceased herself on return to her house to her parents and the aforesaid younger sister and therefore it would be difficult to disbelieve the first part of shameful conduct of the petitioner and the submission Mr. Agrawal that such story cannot be believed because the informant had not named his other daughter, the sister of the 3 deceased, to be an eye witness of the occurrence in the F.I.R. will amount to ignoring the obvious as the two sisters had a full night to be clossetted together enabling the deceased sister to share her trauma with her younger sister. Apart from it even if Court will assume for the sake of argument that the sister in question though she has claimed to be eyewitness, was not so even then her later part of narration that when her father had gone to make a protest to the petitioner he was also humiliated by the petitioner by itself make her statement relevant in the facts of this case because the next part of occurrence of committing suicide by the deceased girl as explained in her narration is that after the humiliation and assault faced by the deceased in the hands of the petitioner, the two friends of the petitioner namely Rahul and Rohit also Co- accused in this case had teased her by taunting her relationship with the petitioner, which made the deceased, also a teenager to lose his mental balance and led her to commit suicide out of shame and 4 disgust. In the circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner of outraging the modesty of the deceased and also insulting her father and finally taunts made by the friends of the petitioner are such interwoven chain of events which had actually compelled the victim girl to commit suicide on 15.1.2009 which would make the petitioner the ‘main hero’ of this occurrence. That being so, this Court would find that there are sufficient materials for prosecution of the petitioner for both under Section 354 and 306 and as such, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected. In view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last ten months or so, the trial court is directed to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is expedited and concluded preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If however for any laches on the part of prosecution the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforementioned period of one year, the 5 petitioner shall have the liberty to initially move the trial court which would record reasons for not concluding the trial, and only thereafter the petitioner can renew prayer for bail before this Court. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/