Jahid Ansari @ Md. Jahid Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30644 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-715 Year-2023 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== Jahid Ansari @ Md. Jahid Ansari Son of Nejam Ansari Resident of VillageTelia, P.S- Banka, Dist- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Banka P.S. Case No. 715/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 354(B), 506, 419, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, accusation against the petitioner is that he used to tease the informant while going to school. It is also alleged that petitioner uploaded obscene photographs of the informant on Facebook and Instagram by making different I.D.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner bears no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the informant and petitioner are resident of same village and the entire family of the petitioner has been made accused in this case due to dirty village

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30644 of 2024(2) dt.21-05-2024 2/2 politics. Entire allegation is baseless and false.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner who is said to have uploaded obscene photographs of the informant on Facebook and Instagram by making different I.D. and there is blackmailing tendency of the petitioner which poses potential question upon the dignity of the informant and hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

7. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. If petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail, the concerned court may pass an appropriate order on the day of hearing. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T