The court grants bail to the petitioner during the pendency of a criminal revision due to lack of serious allegations and confinement factors.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I.A. No. 11050 of 2024

1. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State on 29.01.2025 that notice of this case has been served upon one Rekha Choudhary i.e. the mother of the opposite party no. 2 namely Agni Shikha Choudhary. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that mother of the opposite party no. 2 did not provide the mobile number and address of the opposite party no. 2, but has stated that she will inform her daughter i.e opposite party no. 2.

2. However, when the case is called, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 even today. It also appears that notice had earlier issued to the opposite party no. 2 and postal receipt has given endorsement that “addressee left without instruction.”

3. Thus, it appears that opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the case as she has not appeared even today and as such, the case is being heard.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

5. The instant I.A. No. 11050 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail during pendency of the present Criminal Revision.

6. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 13.05.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2022 by Ms. Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur by which learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2022 by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2022 passed by Sri. N.K. Bharti, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Pakur in connection with Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 575 of 2016 [T.R. No. 290 of 2022] by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and 509 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two (2) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two (2) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 509 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the petitioner at best is alleged for only to caught hold hand of the opposite party no. 2 and there is no serious allegation against him. It is submitted that the petitioner has also retired and the petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2024 and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has caught hold hand of the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that other teachers have also complaint against the petitioner and hence prayer for bail may be rejected.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and from perusal of the Lower Court Records, it appears that the petitioner is alleged to have caught hold the hand of the opposite party no. 2.

10. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2024, during pendency of this Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely Rahul Kumar Singh is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri. N.K. Bharti, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur/or his