Balram Singh @ Aaditya Singh Balram @ Aditya Singh Balram @ Balram Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18426 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2022 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Balram Singh @ Aaditya Singh Balram @ Aditya Singh Balram @ Balram Kumar Singh Son Of Prem Kumar Singh @ Prem Kumar @ Pappu Singh Resident Of Village Diha Police Station -Singhia District -Samastipur ... ... Petitioner.

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gaurav Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mohiuddin Nagar P.S. Case No. 256 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 67 & 67a of the Information Technology Act pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Samastipur. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made indecent video of the informant and put all the video on mobile by creating a fake I.D.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the entire allegation alleged against the petitioner is absurd because

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18426 of 2023(3) dt.03-07-2023 2/2 it is the informant who has sent message to the petitioner which would be apparent from perusal of message sent by the informant. It is further submitted that informant has put pressure upon the petitioner to marry with her and on denial thereof, this false and fabricated case has been lodged against him. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that from perusal of the impugned order and the F.I.R., it appears that the petitioner is involved in the present case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 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. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T