Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8481/2018rejected

Raja Mian @ Md. Ali Raja v. The State Of Bihar

2018-02-21Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8481 of 2018 (2) dt.21-02-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8481 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -170 Year- 2017 Thana -PIPRA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Raja Mian @ Md. Ali Raja S/o Islam Mian, R/o Tiwari Tola Ashok Pakari, P.S.- Pipara, Distt.- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Renuka Ratnakar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-02-2018 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Pipara P.S. Case No.170 of 2017 registered under Sections 376, 511, 354, 379 and other minor Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that while his minor daughter was going to attend the call of nature, the petitioner made an attempt to outrage her modesty. On alarm, the informant and others went there and caught the petitioner but other accused persons came and took away Raja Mian, the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence is said to have taken place on 18.07.2017 but information was given to the police on 22.07.2017. Prior to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8481 of 2018 (2) dt.21-02-2018 institution of the case, the informant lodged the case against the informant and others under Section 379 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Other accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the order passed in Cr. Misc. No.62150 of 2017 but from perusal of the record, it appears that it is the petitioner who is alleged to have made an abruptive attempt to outrage the modesty of the minor daughter of the informant and the informant has specifically stated in the F.I.R. itself that since the incident took place with the minor daughter, he firstly tried to pacify the matter in Panchayati.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T