Jitendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25716 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2022 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== JITENDRA KUMAR S/O DILEEP MAHTO Resident of Village- Imadpur Ward No.- 13, P.S.- Bakhari, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Braj Bhushan Poddar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connected with Bakhari P.S. Case No. 228 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 354(B), 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Begusarai.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the alleged date and time, the informant along with his son was going to house, in the meantime, all the FIR named accused came there and surrounded them and started firing upon them. On raising alarm, when his daughter-in-law came there to save them, petitioner pushed her and tried to outrage her modesty.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25716 of 2023(3) dt.21-07-2023 2/2 that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Both the parties are next door neighbours. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is admitted land dispute between the parties. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, as there is specific overt act against the petitioner to outrage the modesty of the informant's daughter-in-law, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T