Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34422/2017rejected

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-10Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34422 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -110 Year- 2017 Thana -HAJIPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Sah Son of Satya Narayan Sah Resident of Mohalla - Bagmusha Ward No. 4, P.S. Town Hajipur, District - Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Ranjan Pd. Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Pronati Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-08-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Hajipur Tow P.S. Case No. 110 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 290, 354 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Act and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

The police raided one S.K. Residential Hotel on information that flesh trade is going on in the hotel. On such, men and women were apprehended and they disclosed that they were called and flesh trade was running. The petitioner is owner of the hotel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. On the date of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34422 of 2017 (2) dt.10-08-2017 occurrence, the mother-in-law of the petitioner died and he was not present at the place of occurrence. The Manager was present in the hotel. The Manager and former owner of the hotel, falsely implicated the petitioner after hatching up conspiracy but, from perusal of the FIR, itself, it appears that the petitioner is the owner of the hotel and flesh trade was going on.

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

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