Md Jainul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11584 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2021 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna ====================================================== Md Jainul Son of Idrish Resident of Village - Mokama Laheriya Tola, P.s.- Mokama, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(a), 354(b), 504, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A) of I.T. Act, 2020.

According to prosecution case, in brief, as contained in the written report of the informant, namely, Rita Devi is that, she went to Peoples Lab, Mokama for her treatment four years ago and during the treatment compounder opened her clothes and started vulgar activities. She protested his behaviour. During the treatment video made by the compounder. Further submitted that he always call on her mobile and talked in vulgar language. Then she complained about this to her husband. Her husband identify

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11584 of 2022(4) dt.12-09-2022 2/2 the accused, namely, Md. Jainul. On 29.10.2021 video was viraled on social media by accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that in fact the petitioner is not a compounder and the place of occurrence is only a Sample Collection Centre for medical tests where petitioner was working as an Assistant. He further submits that the occurrence took place four years ago but the present F.I.R. was instituted on 29.10.2021. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. was supported by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and during investigation police has received the one Pen Drive in which occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. was recorded. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 330 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Barh, Patna.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Mdrashid/ Vanisha U T