Gulshan Goswami @ Gulshan Kumar @ Gulsan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6797 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2023 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Gulshan Goswami @ Gulshan Kumar @ Gulsan Kumar son of Munna Goswami Village -Hata Tola Gopalpur P.S -Gopalpur District -Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rupak Sharma Daughter of Rameshwar Goswami Village -Hata Tola Gopalpur P.S -Gopalpur District -Gopalganj ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-02-2025 Heard Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 296 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 341, 323, 324, 380, 376, 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged the petitioner of attempting to engage in an unlawful act with the victim, as well as his purported participation in sharing obscene photographs with a co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6797 of 2025(2) dt.14-02-2025 2/2 case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He further submits that there is specific allegation against co-accused Aman Kumar. The petitioner has three criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the processes of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T