Gourav Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20488 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-595 Year-2019 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== GOURAV YADAV, Son of Subodh Yadav, Resident of village - Mahua, P.S.- Barahat, Dist.- Banka at present Resident of Village - Kajhhia, P.S. - Banka, Dist.- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 09-10-2020 The office has reported that the signature of the petitioner on vakalatnama differs with his name given in the petition.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has executed the power, but due to typing error, alias name of the petitioner in petition was left to be typed and, therefore, the name of petitioner be read as Gourav Yadav @ Gourav Kumar.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Banka P. S. Case No.595 of 2019 registered for the offences

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20488 of 2020(2) dt.09-10-2020 2/2 punishable under Sections 354, 354(B), 323, 504/34 of the I.P.C. The accusation against the petitioner is that he made attempt to outrage the modesty of a minor girl, but It is very surprising that police did not register the case under the POCSO Act.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that informant wanted to get his daughter marry with petitioner and when petitioner and his family members did not agree to the above stated proposal, the informant lodged this false case. I am not at all convinced with the above stated submissions and, in my view, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and, accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

However, it is made clear that this order shall not cause any prejudice to the concerned Court at the time of consideration of regular bail application of the petitioner. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) vikash/- U T