Raju Raman @ Rudal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9950 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2022 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== Raju Raman @ Rudal Kumar Son Of Vinod Yadav R/O Sonvarsha, P.S.- Chautham And District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Chautham P.S. Case No. 103 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria.

3. Informant alleged that the petitioner had made viral the pictures of his minor daughter on the social medial and the account was created in the named of Rudall Dipika.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that it appears handiwork of anti-social elements who may have stolen pictures

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9950 of 2023(3) dt.21-08-2023 2/2 of petitioner and the victim girl from their respective Facebook accounts and may have morphed them and put them on fake Facebook account. He further submits that there is compromise between the parties. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is specific overt act against the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

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 seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order, considering the fact that there is compromise between the parties. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T