Sanjeev Sebastin Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34480 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2019 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjeev Sebastin Das, Son Of David Luis Mohalla-Anora Villa Lower Cheli Danga, P.S. - Asansol, Dist- Barddhaman,(West Bengal) At Present Residing Kamla Apartment , Flat No. 202, Kurji Balupar, P.S.- Buddha Colony, DistPatna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Soni Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Buddha Colony P.S. Case No. 374 of 2019, registered for the offences under Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67(b) of the Information Technology Act.

3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner shot a number of photographs of the minor daughter of the informant and tried to seduce her by calling on her mobile number. Thereafter, when the informant tried to contact the petitioner, he did not pick up the call and rather started uploading the photographs of minor daughter of the informant in the Instagram account writing obscene message in her name and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34480 of 2024(2) dt.16-12-2024 2/2 tried to blackmail her.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The occurrence took place on 14.10.2019 and FIR was lodged on 11.11.2019 and there is no explanation for the delay. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner did not send any message to the victim girl and the photographs were taken during school functions. Petitioner is having clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that the petitioner being a teacher indulged in such a conduct which is quite reprehensible.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, I do not think it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected (Arun Kumar Jha, J) balmukund/- U T