Priyanshu Ram @ Priyanshu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25409 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-480 Year-2022 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Priyanshu Ram @ Priyanshu Kumar Son Of Harendra Ram R/O-Gahni Chakiya, P.S.-KATEYA, Distt.-GOPALGANJ ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2024 Heard Mr. Javed Aslam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 480 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 23.10.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 354, 354(A), 509, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner tried to commit rape upon the informant due to which she sustained injuries. It is further alleged that petitioner along with other accused persons have assaulted the informant and her husband by means of lathi and rod.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25409 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 2/2 implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the present case is the counter blast of Kateya P.S. Case No. 481 of 2022.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of material available on record has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the F.I.R it appears that the petitioner was trying to commit rape upon the daughter of the informant due to which she received injury and the injury report of the daughter of the informant suggests that such occurrence has taken place.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this case is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, hence, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 480 of 2022 pending in the court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge cum Special Judge POCSO, Gopalganj.

7. Prayer is refused.

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