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
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.”
The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or undertaking or failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 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 the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”