Chotelal Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17318 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2019 Thana- PALANWA District- East Champaran ====================================================== CHOTELAL SHARMA S/o Ramasish Sharma R/o village- Bhogari, Sonarpatti, P.S.- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-09-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Palanwa P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of false implication of the petitioner. The FIR has been lodged 40 days after the daughter of the informant went missing. It is further submitted that because of some money dispute the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

Learned counsel further submits that the police has not found any material to connect the petitioner with the allegation and it is further submitted that the informant has not submitted his mobile and his call details have not been examined by the investigating

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17318 of 2020(3) dt.01-09-2020 2/2 officer. It is, thus, his submission that the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned APP for the State has submitted that in course of investigation of this case the witnesses have come to support the allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have taken away the daughter of the informant who has yet not returned and in this regard it has also come that when the father of the petitioner was contacted he refused to talk to the Panches.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein there are allegations that this petitioner had taken away the daughter of the informant and the victim girl who is minor still not recovered, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, refused. In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order of this Court. The application stands dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/-sushma U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.