Prince Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16450 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2017 Thana- PURUSHOTTAMPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

PRINCE KUMAR Son of Nageshwar Patel Resident of Village and Police Station - Balthar, District - West Champaran. 2.

Rahul Kumar Son of Madhav Patel Resident of Village and Police Station - Balthar, District - West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar No 7 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 11-01-2022 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Purshottampur P.S. Case no. 28 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16450 of 2021(3) dt.11-01-2022 2/2 As per allegation in the FIR, both the petitioners have passed filthy comments upon the informant, anmely Nikki Kumari, aged about 14 years, when she was returning from her coaching class and on protest they tried to outrage her modesty. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. They have got no criminal antecedent. After finding the case true, final form has been submitted in this case, which is Annexure-2 to the petition. Cognizance has also been taken against the petitioners and other accused persons, which is Annexure-3.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail and submitted that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The application for bail is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U