Petitioner released on bail after being arrested under Sections 354-A, 504, 337, 506/34 IPC and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.377520 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 90 Year 2020 Thana GOVINDPUR District Nawada Nitish Kumar aged about 20 years son of Yogeshwar Ravidas resident of Village Ambedkar Nagar Kunda P.S. Govindpur District ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Mr. Anil Kumar Singh Advocate Mr. Bharat Bhushan APP ... Opposite Party s Date : 23 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to add the number of the special case i.e. POCSO Case No. 720 with the FIR number. Prayer is allowed. Let the same be done by tomorrow through e mode 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Govindpur PS Case No. 90 of 2020 dated 10.05.2020 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 720 instituted under Sections 354 A 504 337 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377520 dt.23 07 2021 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that when the minor daughter of the informant was at the door of her house and offering prayer in the evening at 6.30 PM the petitioner along with others had come and had pulled the scarf of the daughter of the informant and when the informant had gone to the house of the petitioner the informant and her family members were threatened and were sent outside the house and had stated that they would get Panchayati done and would deal with the informant but again they had abused and thrown brick bats and somehow the informant side had managed to save 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the reading of the FIR it is clear that the parties being young the incident of the petitioner having pulled the scarf from the neck of the daughter of the informant even if true has been blown out of proportion. Learned counsel submitted that even as per the FIR there is no allegation of any assault resulting in any injury to any person. Learned counsel submitted that the story in the FIR is not the true narration of the incident It was submitted that it has come during investigation that every day as a matter of routine the petitioner and others used to play Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377520 dt.23 07 2021 cricket and come and wash themselves at the hand pump of the informant and on the date of occurrence there was some altercation between the two sides and without waiting for any Panchayati FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent. 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner who had come to the house to the informant had pulled the scarf of the daughter of the informant which is a serious misconduct on his 8. 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 petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond and give Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377520 dt.23 07 2021 undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner and iii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or undertaking or failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 10. The petition stands disposed off in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Section 354-A Indian penal code, “punishment for sexual harassment” section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace” section 337, “Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others” section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation” Section 34 IPC, “Acts have done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.”   Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, “Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This was in connection with Govindpur PS Case No. 90 of 2020 on 10.05.2020, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 76 of 2020. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 23rd of July 2021 in the case of Nitish Kumar v/s the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.37752 of 2020, Mr. Anil Singh represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor. The following are the facts of the case, the minor daughter of the informant was at the door of her house she was offering prayer around 6:30 PM, the petitioner along with others pulled her scarf from her neck, and when the informant has gone to the house of the petitioner to confront him, the member of the informant family was threatened and the petitioner was accused of abusing and throwing bricks against the informant but however they managed to save themselves.   The counsel for the petitioner claimed before the court that even if the incident of pulling the scarf is true it has been blown out of proportion, according to the FIR no allegation of any assault on any person has been registered and he also claimed that the narration of the case wasn’t all accurate and the petitioner and others as an everyday routine used to wash at the hand pump of the informant and due to some altercation between the parties the complaint was lodged. And also held that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. However, the additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had gone to the house of the informant and pulled her scarf which clearly indicates serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner and his friends. The court decided that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge, however subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to the good behavior of the petitioner (iii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution.”