Vinay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6430 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-815 Year-2019 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Vinay Kumar Singh, aged about 69 years (Male), S/o Rudra Narayan Singh Resident of Flat No. 205, Block- B, Mundeshwari Enclave, Akashvani Road, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 28-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 815 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 instituted under Sections 354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act').

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the school of which he is the Director, the grand daughter of the informant was a student and on 16.10.2019 the driver of the vehicle on which she used to go had committed offence under the POCSO Act with her which was reported to the petitioner and he not only mistreated the informant but had also threatened to lodge a case against him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the petitioner and at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6430 of 2020 dt.28-02-2020 2/2 best, it is the driver, who is responsible and he has also been arrested. Learned counsel submitted that on the alleged date, i.e., 17.10.2019, the informant along with his family members had come while the petitioner was watching the CCTV footage but after half an hour they have left and had lodged the case without any information to the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner was verifying the matter before taking action, as was required.

5. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner, being the Director of the school, has shown total insensitivity in the matter and in a casual manner he has admitted of going through the CCTV footage whereas he ought to have been prompt in lodging the prosecution himself which he had not done.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T