Dilip Kumar @ Divyanshu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8167 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya ====================================================== Dilip Kumar @ Divyanshu, S/O Umesh Mistri R/O Village- Kharanti TolaMoula Nagar, P.S- Bahera O.P., Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
Prakash Prasad Keshari R/O Village- Moula Nagar, P.S- Bahera O.P, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 02-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offence(s) punishable under sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act and under Section 67 and 67(A) of I.T. Act.
3. As per F.I.R., the petitioner, being tutor of the victim, who is a child, started chatting from victim's father mobile and he used to talk her in vulgarous words. Later on, he prepared some filthy photographs of the victim and blackmailed her by threatening that the photographs be made viral.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8167 of 2024(4) dt.02-07-2024 2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He is next door neighbor and there was some dispute taken place between the parties. Petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2023
5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. Mr. J.N. Thakur, opposed the prayer for bail while submitting that the petitioner being the tutor of the victim blackmailed her after threatening that the vulgarous photographs shall be made viral.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) sanjeev/- U T