Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25773 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2023 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Rahul Kumar S/O Sri Satyendra Mochi R/O Village- Bari Tengraila, P.SNaubatpur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Naubatpur PS Case No. 280 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the victim during the course of investigation when he is not named in the FIR. 4.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25773 of 2024(3) dt.06-05-2024 2/2 wherein she has supported the case of prosecution and has stated that petitioner was her home tutor and one day he established physical relations with her in a nearby coaching center and made a video of the act and thereafter started blackmailing and threatening her and also kidnapped her on 19-4-2023. The learned APP next submits that the conduct of the petitioner is reprehensible, being a tutor, he committed such an act with his student.

5.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T