Md Shabbir Alam @ Bachcha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28400 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2020 Thana- POTHIYA District- Kishanganj ====================================================== MD SHABBIR ALAM @ BACHCHA, Son of Md Hafizuddin, Resident of Village- Birnabari, P.S.- Pothia, District- Kishanganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ram Sewak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of one month.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pothia P.S. Case No. 180 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 341, 504, 506, 509, 384, 354(c), 354(D)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the present petitioner is that he took nude photograph of the daughter of the informant and was threatening to make it viral and also demanded ransom. As per F.I.R, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.40,000/- were paid, but the accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28400 of 2021(2) dt.10-03-2022 2/2 persons demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. It has further been alleged that when the marriage of the daughter of the informant was fixed, the present petitioner created hindrance in the marriage after showing that photograph to groom, would be husband of his daughter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

The order of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kishanganj shows itself that although during investigation the case was not found true against co-accused Md. Hafijuuddin, but the complicity of the present petitioner was emerged. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not think it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is, rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned herein above, failing which the matter shall be brought to notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) uday/- U T