Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7207/2024bail rejected

Md. Imran v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-09Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7207 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2023 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Madhubani ====================================================== Md. Imran S/O LAL MOHAMAD MOMIN @ LAL MOHAMAD VILLAGE- DEODHA WARD NO. 7, PS. DEODHA, DIST. MADHUBANI. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 09-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Jaynagar Cyber P.S. Case No.30 of 2023 lodged under Sections 354(D), 509, 419, 420 of the I.P.C. read with Section 66(D), 66(C), 66(E), 67 of the I.T. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown accused persons against whom there is allegation that the objectionable photograph and objectionable obscene material were posted on the Facebook relating to the informant's daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2023 having clean

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7207 of 2024(3) dt.09-04-2024 2/2 antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the case diary has been called for and the petitioner is directly involved in the commission of crime as the said SIM card through which Facebook was running by a mobile No. having IMEI No. and the said IMEI No. is the mobile of the present petitioner.

6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 2 months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T