Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35130/2015dismissed

Sujeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2015-11-02Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35130 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -96 Year- 2015 Thana -ROSHANGAANJ District- GAYA ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar Son of Bindeshwar Prasad, Resident of Village + Police Station - Banke Bazar, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Hirday Pd. Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-11-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Roshan Ganj (Banke Bazar) P.S. Case No. 96/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prevention) Act, 1986.

The allegation against the petitioner and others is that the petitioner and others sent dirty and vulgar message to the wife and daughter of the complainant-informant. The petitioner also did the same things for which the case was lodged and the petitioner was sent to jail. When the petitioner remained in jail the wife and daughter of the informant did not receive any message during that period but when the petitioner was released on bail on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35130 of 2015 (3) dt.02-11-2015 2/2 compromised again the same sorts of message was sent to the wife and daughter of the informant.

It is submitted that the mobile numbers given in the FIR does not belong to the petitioner. There is no material to show the involvement of the petitioner in such act. But having considered the facts that the informant has made very specific allegation that the petitioner was eve-teasing his wife and daughter and sent obscene message, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T