Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8360/2022bail rejected

Raman Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2022-09-01Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8360 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== RAMAN SHARMA SON OF RAM SATYENDRA SHARMA R/O- LOCHA, BISAMBARPUR, P.S.- SUTIHAR, DISTRICT- CHAPRA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kanchan Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-09-2022 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 354A, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Patna Sadar Mahila P.S.Case No. 113 of 2021.

As per allegation, the informant came into contact of the petitioner in a rail journey. They developed intimacy. The petitioner called her in a rest house and administered her poisonous substance. He made obscene videos and photos and shared the same on Facebook and Instagram. He after blackmailing her, used to transfer money in her saving bank account and also asked her to transfer the money in the accounts

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8360 of 2022(2) dt.01-09-2022 2/2 of others as indicated by him. The informant under duress and fear was obeying the direction of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has never shared vulgar photographs of the informant and he is innocent. She has submitted further that the statement of the victim has not been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The witnesses in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the case diary have supported the occurrence.

The investigation is still going on, as such, I do not think it a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T