Patna High Court - Orders
Rohan Gupta vs The State Of Bihar on 13 April, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.10781 of 2011
ROHAN GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
2 13.04.2011Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state.
It would appear from perusal of record that the statement of victim girl has been recorded under section-164 of the Cr.P.C. and she has specifically stated in her statement that she was in love with the petitioner and she solemnized her marriage with him. She disclosed her age before learned Judicial Magistrate as 18 years. Furthermore, the impugned order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Patna reveals that she was medically examined and the Medical Board found her age between 17-19 years. Furthermore, the impugned order reveals that the Matriculation certificate of mark-sheet of the victim was produced before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Patna at the time of hearing of bail of the petitioner but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Patna overlooked the aforesaid matriculation certificate mentioning this fact that the said Matriculation Certificate had not been examined by the I.O. and accordingly, he rejected the prayer of bail of the petitioner.
It is a matter of great shock that the impugned 2 order has been passed by Judicial Officer who is exercising the power of Sessions Judge. It appears to me that either the concerned Judicial officer completely lacks legal acumen or he has intentionally passed the impugned order for which reasons best known to him.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, let the petitioner, namely, Rohan Gupta be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 350 of 2010 to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur.
Let an explanation be called for from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Patna as to under which circumstances they rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner and furthermore, why the matter be not reported to the Standing Committee of this court for taking action against them.
Let this matter be listed before me as tied up matters.
AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)